← Back to Search
Kent DeMott v. Leominster, City of - Police Department (SPR 20242628)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 09-19-2024
ClosedFee PetitionDecision
SPR 20242628 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Kent DeMott concerning records held by Leominster, City of - Police Department, opened 09-19-2024. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20242628
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Kent DeMott
- Date Opened
- 09-19-2024
- Date Closed
- 09-24-2024
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 24, 2024 SPR24/2628 Sergeant Matthew Fallon Leominster Police Department 116 Central Street Leominster, MA 01453 Dear Sergeant Fallon: On September 19, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Leominster Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Kent DeMott. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 5, 2024, Mr. DeMott requested, “copies of any and all audio communications between police/civil servants/their agents/similar and [two identified individuals], that occurred at any and all times between July 8, 2024, and July 12, 2024. Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. 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 Sergeant Matthew Fallon SPR24/2628 Page 2 September 24, 2024 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 2 (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 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department states the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law: The plaintiff’s social security number and name is included in the requested records so that information will need to be redacted under Exemption C. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Sergeant Matthew Fallon SPR24/2628 Page 3 September 24, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. DeMott 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: Kent DeMott