Cory Bombredi v. Phillipston, Town of (SPR 20250485)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 4, 2025 SPR25/0485 Peter Morin Interim Chief Administrative Officer Town of Phillipston 50 The Common Phillipston, MA 01331 Dear Mr. Morin: I have received the petition of Cory Bombredi appealing the response of the Town of Phillipston (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 11, 2025, Mr. Bombredi requested: [1] Payroll records for [an identified individual] between September 1, 2019, and his retirement from the town of Phillipston, MA. [2] A copy of the fire department study referenced in the August 14, 2019, Select Board meeting. [3] A final copy of the investigation report produced by [an identified individual’s] investigation into the Fire Department after ongoing internal reports of missing equipment, missing files and altered reports. [4] A list of employees between the months of July 2019 and April 2020 that were out on administrative leave or investigatory suspension. On January 13, 2025, Mr. Bombredi modified the first item of his request to seek “payroll records to reflect the dates of September 1, 2018, to [an identified individual’s] retirement for ‘medical reasons’.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0278 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 31, 2025). In my January 31st determination, I found that where the Town intended to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, the basis of Mr. 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

Peter Morin SPR25/0485 Page 2 March 4, 2025 Bombredi’s appeal was unclear. Claiming to have received no further response from the Town, Mr. Bombredi again petitioned this office on February 13, 2025, and this appeal, SPR25/0485, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a further response to Mr. Bombredi and this office on February 27, 2025, and Mr. Bombredi further objected to the Town’s response on the same day. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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).

Peter Morin SPR25/0485 Page 3 March 4, 2025 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). The Town’s February 27th Response In its February 27, 2025 response, the Town states that I have reviewed all Personnel records and closed legal files returned to the [Town] by their counsel KP Law in the Phillipston Town Hall. I have found three file folders consisting of hundreds of pages of payroll records, correspondence from Attorney Flich requesting documents and a heavily redacted State Police investigation of a former Phillipston elected official who was also a State Trooper. This report does not appear to be responsive to Mr. Bombredi’s request. In all the files I have reviewed I have not found a copy of Attorney Flich’s investigation. The Town further explains the following concerning fees: I will try to have the payroll records sent to Mr. Bombredi next week. It will take approximately one to two hours to review approximately 200 pages of documents. Municipalities with less than 20,000 residents are allowed to be compensated for the first two hours of retrieval unlike larger communities. I believe the town should be compensated for my time at the rate of $15 per hour. I await Mr. Bombredi’s response as to whether he is willing to pay the cost of the document retrieval. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Bombredi contends that “as of today, February 13, 2025, the date the RAO advised your department I would receive my request I still have not received a single email response from the Town of Phillipston. In his email to this office and the Town on February 27, 2025, Mr. Bombredi states that “while I am willing to continue our conversation in hopes of reaching a resolution, please understand that my formal request to the Commonwealth to compel the release of documents remains active.” He goes on to state that “while I am open to discussion, my request for the Commonwealth to intervene and compel the release of documents remains in effect.” Further, Mr. Bombredi asserts that “if I do choose to pay the $30 fee, this does not negate the Town’s obligation to provide the John Flick Report, nor does it waive my right to further legal action if this request remains unfulfilled.” In light of the Town’s February 27th response, and in light of Mr. Bombredi indicating that he is willing to further discuss the scope of his request with the Town, I encourage Mr. Bombredi and the Town to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing

Peter Morin SPR25/0485 Page 4 March 4, 2025 records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Bombredi may consider further modifying the scope of his request to enable the Town to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Town must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If issues remain after further communication as discussed above, Mr. Bombredi may file a further appeal. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cory Bombredi