Virginia Wang v. Burlington, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20242984)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 5, 2024 SPR24/2984 Kate Curtis‐Bozio Problem‐Solving Analyst Administrative Assistant Burlington Police Department Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Ms. Curtis‐Bozio: On November 1, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Burlington Police Department (Department) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Virginia Wang. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 29, 2024, Ms. Wang requested “all records (incl. the police report + video camera footage) for the incident at Lahey Clinic ER on 10/4/24.” Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The 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

Kate Curtis‐Bozio SPR24/2984 Page 2 November 5, 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests to charge a fee of $68.57 per hour, and provides the following in support of its request: The requested records include the following: a 30-minute video body camera video from the responding Officer and an Officer’s Report. The lowest-paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of these records is Captain Kevin Cooney. The body camera equipment was recently implemented in the department, introducing advanced technology that captures critical footage. As a result, Captain Cooney has emerged as the sole individual with a comprehensive understanding of the software, enabling him to navigate its features effectively. He is currently the only one with the necessary clearance to access and review the recorded videos.

Kate Curtis‐Bozio SPR24/2984 Page 3 November 5, 2024 In an email to this office on November 1, 2024, the Department states, “[t]he fee is only to be associated with additional time beyond two hours for the redaction of the body-camera footage. The fee does not apply to any redaction outside of the body-camera footage” Based on 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I find the Department may assess a fee limited to $68.57 per hour for the tasks described above. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department may assess a fee limited to $68.57 per hour. This office encourages Ms. Wang and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Department must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Wang 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: Virginia Wang