MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Martha Barrows v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20250154)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 01-16-2025

ClosedFee PetitionDecision

SPR 20250154 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Martha Barrows concerning records held by Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 01-16-2025. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20250154
Case Type
Fee Petition
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Martha Barrows
Custodian
Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk
Date Opened
01-16-2025
Date Closed
01-21-2025

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 January 21, 2025 SPR25/0154 Anne Mahoney Assistant Town Administrator Town of Holbrook 50 North Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Mahoney: On January 16, 2025, this office received the petition of James Donnelly, Esq., of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, on behalf of the Town of Holbrook (Town) 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Martha Barrows. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 2, 2025, Ms. Barrows requested “the time sheets (for the year 2024), for the weeks ending: October 24, 31; November 7, 14, 21, 28; December 5, 12, 19, 26.” Please note that in an email to this office on January 16, 2025, Ms. Barrows objected to the Town’s petition. 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 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

Anne Mahoney SPR25/0154 Page 2 January 21, 2025 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 understanding 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Current Petition In its petition, the Town requests “that it be permitted to charge $25 per hour for its search time and redaction time” and argues the following in support of its request: Here, the Town has identified twenty pages of timesheets that are responsive to the Request. It took the Town thirty minutes to search for and identify the responsive timesheets. Additionally, the responsive timesheets contain personnel information protected from disclosure by Exemption (c) to the Public Records

Anne Mahoney SPR25/0154 Page 3 January 21, 2025 Law, including information concerning a particular employee’s leave and plant shift coverage information relating to which specific employees are working which exact shift. Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Town to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Ms. Barrows may appeal the Town’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Barrows 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: Martha Barrows