Cory Bombredi v. Barre, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20242822)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 21, 2024 SPR24/2822 Tammy Martin Town Administrator Town of Barre 40 West Street, Suite 697 Barre, MA 01005 Dear Ms. Martin: On October 11, 2024, this office received the petition of Attorney Gregg J. Corbo, of KP Law, P.C., on behalf of the Town of Barre (Town) seeking relief from the obligation to produce responsive records, an extension of time to produce records, and 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, I understand that the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Cory Bombredi. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In its petition, the Town states that it “has received 14 public records requests, in addition to six (6) amended and revised requests (for a total of 20 requests) in rapid succession over the course of three (3) days from September 28 through September 30, 2024[.]” Specifically, on September 13, 2024, Mr. Bombredi requested: [1] Any and all bank statements from the 250th Committee held by the Town of Barre or privately by the Committee[;] [2] Any and all commitments of funds from the Town of Barre on behalf of the Celebration of the Town’s 250th year. This should include but not limited to contracts signs [sic], contracts pending, deposits made for goods, services or space to be rented, goods purchased, goods ordered, and any other financial commitment made[;] [3] Any and all Town departments or employees that will be compensated for services provided during events planned by the 250th committee. This should include Police services, Fire services, EMS services, DPW services, or any other employee of the town. Please provide the funding source of any and all payments for compensation that will be made. . . . [P]lease provide where in the budget these funds are listed. [4] A list of committee members who completed the required Massachusetts Ethics training, along with the date of completion. . . .[;] 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

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 2 October 21, 2024 [5] A list of any and all committee members who were sworn in by the Town Clerk as required by law. Please provide the date and time for each member[;] [6] A complete list of any and all “Official” Town of Barre 250th celebration events that have not taken place as of yet but are scheduled to do so. In an email to the Town dated September 28, 2024, Mr. Bombredi modified Items 1-4 and 6 of his request. Specifically, Mr. Bombredi modified Item 1 and asked, “[i]s the Town of Barre in possession of the ‘Friends of Barre’ bank statements and will you be providing them . . . ?” Mr. Bombredi additionally modified Items 2 and 3 to include, “the details surrounding the approval by the selectboard to issue town funds to Harding Allen. . . . [including] the date of the meeting this was voted on, the vote count, the meeting minutes for this meeting and a link to the video where the Town of Barre approved this expense” and “invoices for Town employees and services provided,” respectively. Mr. Bombredi modified Item 4 and asked, “[c]an you confirm that all committee members have completed the required training?” Further, Mr. Bombredi modified Item 6 and asked “if the 250th planning [sic] any events beyond December 31, 2024, and if so would the Select Board approve this request?” On September 29, 2024, Mr. Bombredi requested: [7] A copy of the CARES ACT Grant paperwork, including who is responsible for processing the paperwork. Please include any . . . communications with the Federal Government rejecting the reimbursement for being filed late. Please provide a detailed list of items, goods and services that the unreimbursed $151,534.59 of taxpayer’s money was spent on[;] [8] [T]he above information for the Sidewalk Improvement Grant[;] [9] [T]he above information for the Economic Development Grant[;] [10] [T]he above information for the Open Space Recreation Grant[;] [11] [A] copy of the grant application for the four (4) abovementioned grants including signatures of any town employee who applied for, signed off, and was responsible for the contracts involved[;] [12] A written response to this public information request. On September 30, 2024, Mr. Bombredi requested: [13] Any communication . . . discussing the removal of [an identified individual] . . . from the Town of Barre Finance Committee[;] [14] Any and all responses to the abovementioned communication over any format[;] [15] A list of anyone . . . copied on this communication and any responses.. . .[;] [16] A written response to this request. Also on September 30, 2024, Mr. Bombredi requested: [17] [A]ll Prevailing Wage sheets requested from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s division of Occupational Safety for “Public Works”

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 3 October 21, 2024 referenced in the Administration and Finance Policies and Procedures adopted by the Select Board on March 17, 2014, from the last ten (10) applicable “Public Works” Projects. . . .[;] [18] [T]he certified payroll records (CPRs) submitted and maintained for the above mentioned ten (10) ‘Public Works’ project. . . .[;] [19] [T]he above mentioned ten (10) signed contracts submitted to the Town Accountant should the total cost of the project be $10,000 or greater. Please provide the three (3) written quotes for each of these projects along with the total final payment made. Include a written explanation if any final payments are more than the awarded bid. [20] [T]he OSHA 10 Training certification for [a]ll covered employees who are entitled to receive the prevailing wage[.] In a letter with exhibits provided to this office and Attorney Corbo on October 13, 2024, Mr. Bombredi objected to the Town’s petition. Petitions for an Extension of Time, Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 4 October 21, 2024 request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Relief In its petition, the Town requests “relief from numerous duplicative and harassing public records requests propounded by Mr. Cory Bombredi[.]” In support of its request, the Town opines the following: By way of background, the Town has established a committee to celebrate its 250th anniversary (“250 th Committee” or “Committee”). Mr. Bombredi is a member of the Town’sFinancial Committee. . . . Mr. Bombredi has apparently been leveraging his title as amember of the Financial Committee to use the public records law to harass and intimidate members of the 250th Committee. The Town has previously responded to dozens of requests from Mr. Bombredi seeking information on the 250th Committee and various other Town departments. . . . In each case, the requests coincide with posts Mr. Bomb[re]di makes on social media harassing and disparaging members of the 250th Committee. For example, in April, the Chair of the 250th Committee reached out to the Town regarding Mr. Bombredi’s social media posts. A copy of the Chair’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Chair reported that Mr. Bombredi’s “actions have become threatening to some members.” Exhibit B. At the same time, Mr. Bombredi submitted an eight (8)-part records request. . . . The Town responded to this request and did not assess any fees in connection therewith. Again in September, the Chair of the 250th Committee, along with another member of the public reached out to the Town regarding Mr. Bombredi’s continued pattern of harassing behavior. A copy of the letters are attached hereto as Exhibit D and Exhibit E. Again, shortly after these concerns were expressed, Mr. Bombardi [sic] propounded another lengthy public records request seeking information on the 250th Committee. A copy of the request, dated September 28, 2024, is outlined above and attached hereto as Exhibit F. . . . The Town respectfully submits that the targeted nature of these requests clearly demonstrate that Mr. Bombredi is not intending broad dissemination of information to the public but rather to harass and intimidate members of the 250th Committee and the Town staff that works with them. The Town has responded to all prior requests in good faith in compliance with the provisions of the Public Records Law and without assessing any fees. Despite its good faith efforts, the Requestor nevertheless continues to submit multiple new requests and amending or revising requests where he receives answers he disagrees with, straining Town staff with limited resources. The Town, therefore, seeks relief from the requirement to respond to any currently pending requests or future duplicative requests. Based on the timing, number, and nature of the requests, it is clear that the requests are designed solely to intimidate or harass public officials with whom

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 5 October 21, 2024 Mr. Bombredi disagrees. Therefore, the public interest strongly supports the Town’s request for relief. Based on the information provided in the Town’s petition, I find that the Town has not demonstrated the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Town requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The Town of Barre is a small Town with limited resources. It is estimated that Town staff is going to have to expend more than sixteen (16) hours responding to this latest round of requests, and substantially more than that if the Town is required to comply with certain other requests that have been denied. . . . [T]he Requestor has propounded 20 broad requests, across multiple different Town departments, seeking hundreds of pages of documents. These multiple requests seek similar or the same information with varied wordings, placing a heavy burden on the Town to interpret the requests and review documents for responsiveness. Such responsive records may contain personal identifying information or financial account information which will have to be reviewed and redacted as required by law pursuant to Exemption (a). Additionally, the Town does not currently have the capability to do these redactions digitally, so any records will need to be printed, redacted and then rescanned to provide digital copies, per Mr. Bombredi’s request. The work necessitated by these Requests will have to be added to staff’s other responsibilities which includes interacting with members of the public who need timely assistance to enable them to complete important business of their own. If Town staff were required to respond to all of these requests within the fifteen business days allotted under the statute, the work of the Town Administrator, Town Accountant, Department of Public Works and other departments will be severely hindered and will essentially grind to a halt. This is an unreasonable burden to place on the Town . . . . Based on the Town’s petition, I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, the capacity of the Town to produce the request without the extension, and the efforts undertaken by Town in fulfilling the current requests, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the Town an extension of 30 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Ms. Bombredi’s requests. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c).

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 6 October 21, 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. 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 7 October 21, 2024 Current Petition In its petition, the Town includes correspondence dated October 11, 2024, in which the Town indicates, “[w]here records do exist, certain information may be withheld or redacted under exemptions to the Public Records Law, other applicable provisions of law, and/or common law privileges. . .” The Town further explains, “[w]here the lowest paid employees capable of doing this work are paid at rates of more than $25.00 per hour, [Mr. Bombredi] will be charged at the maximum rate of $25.00 per hour.” In addition to redactions required by law under Exemption (a), which the Town notes “includes documents relating to individual financial security pursuant to Chapter 93H of the General Laws[,]” the Town states the following: [Mr. Bombredi has] requested documents which may contain personally identifiable information subject to redaction under [Exemption] . . . (c) of the Public Records Law. . . . The disclosure of documents containing personally identifiable information, including but not limited to social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and other personal information would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy and are protected from disclosure pursuant to [Exemption] . . . (c). Therefore, any such information will be redacted from any documents provided. In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, as described above, I cannot grant the Town’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. This office encourages Mr. Bombredi and the Town to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Bombredi 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(d)(iv)(4), l0A(c).

Tammy Martin SPR24/2822 Page 8 October 21, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cory Bombredi