Ashly Eikelberg v. Norwood, Town of (SPR 20250409)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2025 SPR25/0409 Mary Lou Folan Town Clerk Town of Norwood 566 Washington Street, Room 27 Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Ms. Folan: On February 12, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Norwood (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Attorney Ashly Eikelberg, of Morgan & Morgan. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 29, 2025, Attorney Eikelberg requested the following materials for the years 2018-2022: ...[c]ommunications (email, written correspondence, etc.), records, documents, recordings (audio and video), and any other tangible thing which may regard [multiple properties and businesses]... 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; 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

Mary Lou Folan SPR25/0409 Page 2 February 19, 2025 (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. 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). Current Petition In its petition, the Town requests “an additional 30 business days to respond to this request” and provides the following information in support of its request: [The Town] makes this request for additional time because the employee who will perform the search and recovery, review, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore, including public safety responsibilities. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. 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

Mary Lou Folan SPR25/0409 Page 3 February 19, 2025 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). 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 to search and recover, review, segregate and potentially redact records that are responsive to the request,” and provides the following information: [T]he records need to be reviewed to determine if there are pages responsive to the request and segregate and potentially redact any personal information (i.e.,

Mary Lou Folan SPR25/0409 Page 4 February 19, 2025 personal cell phones numbers and email addresses) protected from disclosure by Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, as well as any confidential information in police records protected by Exemption (a) and Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law, contained within the records that have been identified in response to the request. 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 As described above, I find that the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Additionally, I find that 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. Please note, Attorney Eikelberg 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: Ashly Eikelberg, Esq., Morgan & Morgan James Donnelly, Esq., Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP.