Todd Wallack v. Bridgewater, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242171)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 14, 2024 SPR24/2171 Meredith Roselli Office Administrator Records Access Officer Bridgewater Police Department 220 Pleasant Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Roselli: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack, of WBUR, appealing the response of the Bridgewater Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 17, 2024, Mr. Wallack requested, “[a] copy of [the Department’s] log of public records requests since Jan. 1, 2019. If [the Department’s] log is only readily available for a more recent period, please provide the log for that more recent period instead.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/1760 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 27, 2024) and SPR24/1946 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 19, 2024). In my July 19th determination, I found that the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. The Department responded on July 31, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2171, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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

Meredith Roselli SPR24/2171 Page 2 August 14, 2024 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Fee estimate – 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) 2 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 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). The Department’s responses In its prior response on June 12, 2024, the Department gave an estimate of $375.00 and stated the following: [The] department estimates approximately 17 hours of review pertaining to [Mr. Wallack’s] records request… The Department is required to devote more than 2 hours of time to search for, compile, segregate, redact and/or reproduce the requested records; and the segregation or redaction of records is required by law and the fee has been approved by the Supervisor of Public Records. The search and segregation costs have been calculated using the lowest hourly rate of $31.47 which is based on the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to

Meredith Roselli SPR24/2171 Page 3 August 14, 2024 complete the search and segregation or $25.00, whichever is less, or the hourly rate allowed by the supervisor of public records. To comply with your request, it will take approximately 17 hours of search and segregation time, based upon the following: Reading and Segregating each individual record to determine which records are releasable based on Public Records Law as well as redacting any Records necessary. The total number of hours charged will be 15 hours X $25.00, as Public Records Law restricts us from charging for the first two (2) hours of search. On June 13, 2024, the Department sent an email containing additional information which stated, “[t]he Bridgewater police department has received approximately 7,500 records requests from multiple agencies, as well as private citizens between the years 2019 and 2024. Our public records request logs contain the names of individuals making requests, the names of individuals whose records are being requested, including minors, private addresses, the reasons for requests, Docket numbers, criminal CORI protected information such as sexual assault, domestic violence, LTC information and witness information to track reasons for denials, exemptions, and redactions. For this reason, each log entry must be scrutinized, and redactions applied when necessary. We are a department which employs one specified RAO for a town with a population of approximately 28,900. For these reasons, we have placed a reasonable estimate of 17 hours for the time necessary to appropriately review and apply deliberate attention/process to each entry.” In a previous response on July 8, 2024, the Department stated the following: [The Department is] outlining the specific exemptions that will need to be reviewed, withheld, and/or redacted from our public records log: [CORI] In particular, G.L. c. 6, sections 167-178B… [DOMESTICS]: In particular, G.L. c. 41, section 97D… … Our BPD records log contains arrest information and Domestic violence victim information, with specific names to track the specific reasons for redacting or withholding records from a requestor. Exemption (c)… Our records log contains medical files and or personal information. It lists specific medical reasons; IE Overdoses, Suicide, OUI, and specific names in log descriptions for the purposes of tracking reasons for withholding /redacting information. Exemption (f)… Our records log contains specific names of individuals involved in investigations, along with names of witnesses. The purpose of which is to track the specific reasons for withholding/Redacting records from a requestor.

Meredith Roselli SPR24/2171 Page 4 August 14, 2024 On July 31, 2024, the Department stated the following: …the department is only able to redact CORI related information within the time frame needed to fulfill this records request. This does not reduce the estimated time frame to review each individual record recorded within our Public Records Log, as there are still approximately 7,500 records requests contained in our logs and will need to manipulate and reproduce this log with the necessary redactions from an excel spread sheet. [The Department] believe[s] this to be a reasonable time frame to do so. As explained before this is only an estimate, and any reduction in the time estimate would be refunded back to Mr. Wallack. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Wallack states, “The department says it needs to redact its public records log because of CORI. However, the CORI law does not contain any statutory language requiring such redactions.” Although the Department has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing requested records requires 17 hours to produce responsive records, it remains unclear from the Department’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. It is also uncertain from the Department’s response how many minutes per page the Department requires to segregate and/or redact the records. The Department must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Further, the Department indicated in its June 12th response that it will charge a fee for “reading[.]” However, it is unclear how the Department may assess a fee for reading under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). I find the Department must provide additional information explaining how this task, constitutes time to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce records and how it is chargeable under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). With regard to Mr. Wallack’s objections regarding the Department’s claims of redactions, please be advised that where the Department has yet to produce the records, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Mr. Wallack may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). I encourage Mr. Wallack and the Department to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. The requestor may wish to narrow the parameters or include factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The Department must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the

Meredith Roselli SPR24/2171 Page 5 August 14, 2024 request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Wallack with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 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: Todd Wallack