Gayla Cawley v. MBTA (SPR 20230192)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 7, 2023 SPR23/0192 Julie Ciollo, Esq. Records Access Officer Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the MBTA furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 17, 2023, Gayla Cawley requested the following: [1] ... all correspondence from MBTA Deputy Director . . . to CRRC MA Project Director . . . regarding the new Orange and Red Line trains from 2022 and January 2023. [2] ... all correspondence from CRRC MA Project Director . . . to MBTA Deputy Director . . . regarding the new Orange and Red Line trains from 2022 and January 2023. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Julie Ciollo, Esq. SPR23/0192 Page 2 February 7, 2023 The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its January 31, 2023 petition, the MBTA seeks permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. In support of its petition, the MBTA provides the following information: Certain parts of the request call for records likely to contain material that will require redaction under Exemption (d) to the Public Records Law. . . .The MBTA has engaged with Cubic, or Boston AFC 2.0 OpCo, for a new automated fare collection system. Many responsive records will contain information concerning non-public, ongoing policy development. This information does not constitute

Julie Ciollo, Esq. SPR23/0192 Page 3 February 7, 2023 factual studies or reports but is rather recommendations on legal and policy matters found within the ongoing deliberative process concerning Cubic’s work for the MBTA. . . . The MBTA believes that responsive records may require redaction of security- sensitive information pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(n). . . .Specifically, responsive records in this matter may contain information about safety aspects of MBTA infrastructure, information security, technology, plans or schematics, and other material that cannot be shared publicly without jeopardizing public safety. Based on information provided in the MBTA’s petition, I find the MBTA has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the MBTA may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the MBTA may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Ms. Cawley and the MBTA to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the MBTA must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Cawley has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gayla Cawley