Karen Tatro v. North Adams, City of (SPR 20241167)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 2, 2024 SPR24/1167 Stacy Abuisi Records Officer City of North Adams 10 Main Street North Adams, MA 01247 Dear Ms. Abuisi: I have received the petition of Karen Tatro appealing the response of the City of North Adams (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 2, 2024, Ms. Tatro requested “[a]ny and all communications to or from [a named individual’s] City issued cell phone, including text messages, emails, and social media accounts for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/0150 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 31, 2024). In my January 31st determination, it was my understanding that the City provided Ms. Tatro with a subsequent response on January 19, 2024. Subsequently, the City provided an additional response on March 7, 2024. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Tatro petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1167, was opened as a result. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality 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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the 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

Stacy Abuisi SPR24/1167 Page 2 May 2, 2024 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Tatro states, “I request the City respond following Massachusetts general law, as advised, and I request the unreasonable fee be removed due to noncompliance of the city of North Adams.” The City’s March 7th Response In its March 7, 2024 response, the City stated, “[t]hese requests resulted in a total of 52,566 emails requiring review and redaction… [The City] offered to assist [Ms. Tatro] in modifying the scope of [her] request on January 3, 2024 and remain available should [she] become interested in doing so. In order to reduce costs associated with complying with [her] initial request, we suggest that [she] may wish to identify a specific subject matter(s) [she is] interested in, communications with specific individuals or limit the time frame.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under subsection (b).” I find the City has not met its burden to demonstrate that its January 19, 2024 response was in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Specifically, where Ms. Tatro submitted a request on January 2, 2024, and the City did not provide a good faith estimate of fees until January 19th, the twelfth business day, I find the City has not met its burden to demonstrate that its January 19, 2024 response was in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Accordingly, the City may not charge a fee for public records under G. L. c. 66, § 10(e). This office encourages Ms. Tatro and the City to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). As the City has stated in its response, Ms. Tatro may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable time periods or factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i).

Stacy Abuisi SPR24/1167 Page 3 May 2, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Tatro with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Karen Tatro