Taylor Dolven v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20230501)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 21, 2023 SPR23/0501 Julie Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Records Access Officer Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 7760 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: On March 15, 2023, this office 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, it is my understanding that the MBTA furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). On March 1, and March 2, 2023, Taylor Dolven, of the Boston Globe, requested: [1] BBR proposal for GLTPS [2] BBR contract and any amendments for GLTPS [3] Contracts with any consultant firms who have worked on the GLTPS project [4] List of current and former members of the MBTA executive selection committee for procurement since 2013 [5] Metrom Rail proposal for GLTPS [6] Meeting minutes between BBR and MBTA on the GLTPS project. Petition to Assess Fees 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. SPR23/0501 Page 2 March 21, 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 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 March 15th petition, the MBTA argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction: The Green Line Train Protection System (GLTPS) is an infrastructure project that is currently being implemented. As the process unfolds, policy determinations must be deliberated, often in response to evolving circumstances and conditions, which may include discussions and recommendations among attorneys, policy makers, contractors, and consultants Therefore, the documents are likely to

Julie Ciollo, Esq. SPR23/0501 Page 3 March 21, 2023 contain recommendations and discussions of legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process and Exemption (d) is likely to apply. Redaction is allowed for information under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 4, sec. 7, clause 26 (n).... Based on the nearly 1,000 documents already produced in this matter, the MBTA has determined that information contained in additional documents will likely include safety sensitive information, such as proof of concept tests, safety infrastructure, and safety measures being implemented. Therefore, the Safety Sensitive Exemption is likely to apply. In light of 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, it is my determination that given the nature of the requested records and the explanation in its petition, the MBTA is permitted to charge for time spent segregating and redacting the requested records. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the MBTA to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note the requestor 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(d)(iv)(4), l0A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Taylor Dolven