Maggie Mckee v. Quincy, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20242717)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 11, 2024 SPR24/2717 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy Office of the City Clerk 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Maggie McKee appealing the response of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 26, 2024, Ms. McKee requested “all emails, faxes, letters, and memos to and from any city councilor, the mayor, chief of staff… and chief financial officer… between October 1, 2023, and July 26, 2024 that reference any of the following terms…” The City provided a response on September 13, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. McKee petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2717, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a response on October 4, 2024, providing a fee estimate. 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). 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. Att’y 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 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR24/2717 Page 2 October 11, 2024 or redacted portion of the responsive record. Fees Estimates - Municipalities 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. 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 how 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 City’s Responses In its September 13, 2024 response, the City stated, “I forwarded it to the IT, Mayor’s and Law office.” In its October 4, 2024 response, the City provided an estimate of $17,245 and stated, “[p]lease see the attached from the IT Department, which was prepared and forwarded on August 1, 2024 to the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, who had sent out the initial response to Ms. McKee. While we are uncertain what happened once IT sent this memo out, I presume my earlier email - in which I explained that a number of recipients were addressed, was at least part of the reason it was not forwarded along.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. McKee states, “[m]y request sought more information about the 79 and 50% raises for Quincy’s mayor and council that the council approved in June… The City of Quincy has provided neither an official response about whether or not it will comply with the

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR24/2717 Page 3 October 11, 2024 record request below nor the information requested (and I believe the information should be provided; it doesn’t fall under the exceptions listed on your site).” In response to the City’s October 4th fee estimate, Ms. McKee states, “[u]nfortunately, this is the first response I have had about this request (as is clear from my forwarded emails to the Secretary of the Commonwealth… where I repeatedly email… Quincy asking about the status of the request). Based on the guide to public records law found on the Secretary's website, I think the lack of response from the city negates any fees for the request… But even aside from that, I find the $17,000+ fee, and the 586-person-hours estimated for the work, to be unreasonably high… My husband is a software engineer, and he is happy to help search the city’s email archive for these keywords so that city IT department employees would not have to take time away from their regular duties to fulfill this request.” 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).” Where Ms. McKee submitted a public records request on July 26, 2024, and the City provided a fee estimate on October 4, 2024 but states that a fee estimate “was prepared and forwarded on August 1, 2024,” I find that it is unclear whether the City complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e). Specifically, the City must demonstrate whether it provided a response to Ms. McKee’s request under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) within 10 business days of receipt of the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. McKee 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: Maggie McKee