MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Kent DeMott v. Leominster, City of - Police Department (SPR 20243210)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 11-26-2024

ClosedFee PetitionDecision

SPR 20243210 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Kent DeMott concerning records held by Leominster, City of - Police Department, opened 11-26-2024. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20243210
Case Type
Fee Petition
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Kent DeMott
Custodian
Leominster, City of - Police Department
Date Opened
11-26-2024
Date Closed
12-02-2024

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 December 2, 2024 SPR24/3210 Sergeant Matthew Fallon Leominster Police Department 116 Central Street Leominster, MA 01453 Dear Sergeant Fallon: On November 26, 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 November 18, 2024, Mr. DeMott requested the following “with respect to any and all interactions with either [two identified individuals], and any and all members of the Leominster Police Department or its civilians employees, which occurred between the dates of September 20, 2024”: [1] any and all police worn body cam footage[;] [2] any and all written police reports[;] [3] an[y] and all written civilian reports[.] 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). 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 SPR24/3210 Page 2 December 2, 2024 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). 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, the Department states “[r]edactions to the records may be needed under Exemption A…” Please be advised, records custodians may assess fees for time spent segregating or redacting records where such segregation or redaction is required by law. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(d) (stating that fee for segregation or redaction is permissible when approved by Supervisor or when required by law. Where the Department only seeks to assess fees as required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, I find it unnecessary to opine on whether the Department may assess fees for segregating and redacting the records.

Sergeant Matthew Fallon SPR24/3210 Page 3 December 2, 2024 Conclusion As described above, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the Department’s petition for permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. Mr. DeMott may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1) 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