← Back to Search
Laura Santopietro v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20242782)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency must provide records · Filed 10-08-2024
ClosedFee PetitionPetitioner Won
SPR 20242782 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Laura Santopietro concerning records held by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, opened 10-08-2024. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency must provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20242782
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Laura Santopietro
- Date Opened
- 10-08-2024
- Date Closed
- 10-15-2024
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 October 15, 2024 SPR24/2782 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Records Access Officer Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 7760 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: On October 8, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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 MBTA furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Laura Santopietro. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In separate requests, on September 26, 2024 and October 2, 2024, Ms. Santopietro requested the following records: [1] [T]he certified payroll records for all employees working for the Middlesex Corporation on the “construction portion of the Green Line Extension (GLX) Design Build contract between March 2020 thru March 2022[;] [2] [T]he certified payroll records for all employees working for the Middlesex Corporation on the Track Improvement Program Contract 2 – Orange Line...[;] [3] [T]he certified payroll records for all employees working for the Middlesex Corporation on the Track Improvement Program Contract 3 – Red Line... [;] Petition to assess fees – Agencies A fee shall not 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. 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 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 A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR24/2782 Page 2 October 15, 2024 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). 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 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 petition, the MBTA seeks to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In support of its request, the MBTA provides the following information: Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR24/2782 Page 3 October 15, 2024 [A]n initial reading of these requests indicates that responsive records will likely contain personal information about named individuals. Therefore, the MBTA must expend time redacting this information that is protected from disclosure under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 4, Sections 7(26)(c). … [R]esponsive records will contain certain line items on payroll records concerning personal information such as tax liens or child support payments which, if made public, would result in personal embarrassment to the named individuals. These are highly personal details that are not otherwise available from other sources. There is no prevailing public interest requiring disclosure. Therefore, redaction would be appropriate under Exemption (c). Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the MBTA has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the MBTA may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the MBTA to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the MBTA is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The MBTA must provide a response to Ms. Santopietro within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Ms. Santopietro 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: Laura Santopietro