Katherine Stathulis, Esq. v. Dracut, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250187)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2025 SPR25/0187 David J. Chartrand Deputy Chief of Police Dracut Police Department 110 Loon Hill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Deputy Chief Chartrand: On January 22, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dracut 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, Katherine Stathulis, Esq., of The Center for Public Interest, Advocacy, and Collaboration. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 21, 2025, Attorney Stathulis requested: [1] An extract of your records management system or database that includes each school-related arrest and each referral to law enforcement conducted during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 school year (up until the day the records are produced). . .[;] [2] If such an extract of the database in question 1 is not possible, please provide police reports and school incident reports on each school-related arrest conducted during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 school year (up until the day the records are produced)[;] [3] A copy of any active standard operating procedures developed with the police department and/or other law enforcement agencies regarding police placement or activity in your corresponding school[;] [4] Any records instructing or informing police personnel of, or otherwise describing data reporting requirements and procedures for complying with G.L. c. 7l § 37P(b)[;] 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

David J. Chartrand SPR25/0187 Page 2 January 27, 2025 [5] The cost to the school district of assigning a school resource officer to each school[;] [6] The total number of school resource officers and total number of guidance counselors for each school in your district for school years 2018-2019 2019-2020, 2020-2021[;] [7] The total number and a brief description of 911 calls from schools in your district to local police departments conducted during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-202l, and 2021-2022[;] [8] A description of the proposed budget for mental social or emotional health support personnel for the school district. It is my understanding that the petition, which is the subject of this determination concerns Item 2 of Attorney Stathulis’ request. 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 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.

David J. Chartrand SPR25/0187 Page 3 January 27, 2025 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 requests to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records, and argues the following in support of its request: The identified reports will have to be reviewed and potentially redacted if they contain information identified as statutorily exempt from the Public Records Law. Specifically. G.L. c. section 7 (26) exemption (c) personnel or medical files or information: also any materials or data relating to a specifically named individual. the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. These records will include identifiers of juveniles. Very often there is a mental health component of the investigations that could constitute medical files. These reports also contain identifiers of school personnel and staff. The disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption (f) investigatory material necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. These records may contain identification and statements of witnesses. The public disclosure of such information may chill future witness cooperation. This would

David J. Chartrand SPR25/0187 Page 4 January 27, 2025 create an undue hindrance to effective law enforcement. Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Attorney Stathulis 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: Katherine Stathulis, Esq.