Carmen Columna v. Lawrence, City of - City Attorney's Office (SPR 20250237)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 31, 2025 SPR25/0237 Kevin Foley, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Attorney Foley: On January 27, 2025 this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Lawrence (City) seeking 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, it is my understanding that the City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Carmen Columna. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 13, 2025 Mr. Columna requested, “list of employees who were on Paid Administrative Leave…[c]overing from January 2010…through…January 10, 2025.” Petition for an Extension of Time 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. 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

Kevin Foley, Esq. SPR25/0237 Page 2 January 31, 2025 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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the City requests “an extension of time, not to exceed 20 business days, from the date of the grant of the extension, to furnish the records responsive to this request.” In support of its request the City provides the following information: As grounds for allowance of the extension, the request, as presently constituted, encompasses a potentially large volume of records dating back more than 15 years, which will require significant time to identify, retrieve and collect. After those records are identified, the City staff would need to examine, segregate and redact the records before disclosing them. Although city employees work 35 hours each week to complete their regular duties, there is no dedicated staff assigned to review and redact records responsive to FOIA requests. As such, the records sought by the present request would need to be segregated and redacted during normal business hours in addition to completion of regular duties. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 20 business days. 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

Kevin Foley, Esq. SPR25/0237 Page 3 January 31, 2025 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 City requests “authorization to charge for time spent segregating and redacting records.” In support of its request, the City provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: As presently constituted the request would require retrieval of hundreds and hundreds of records for the past 15 years. Given the nature of the request, as presently constituted, the records would contain sensitive information subject to redaction and withholding under G. L. c 4, §7(26)(c) because they relate to specifically named individuals and contain personal information, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City 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 City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Further, this office encourages the requestor and the City to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, §10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Columna 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).

Kevin Foley, Esq. SPR25/0237 Page 4 January 31, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Carmen Columna