← Back to Search
Alberto Brito v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250522)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 02-24-2025
ClosedFee PetitionDecision
SPR 20250522 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Alberto Brito concerning records held by Framingham, City of - Police Department, opened 02-24-2025. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20250522
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Alberto Brito
- Date Opened
- 02-24-2025
- Date Closed
- 02-25-2025
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 February 25, 2025 SPR25/0522 Kristin Sullivan Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Sullivan: On February 24, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Framingham Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a public records request. 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, Alberto Brito. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 23, 2025, Mr. Brito requested, “Body Worn Camera Footage from 1/7/2025 at [a specified address] where 20+ dogs were found in an apartment/housing unit there. Seeking the entire footage to be muted as to make this responsive document releasable without redaction and limiting the editing time.” 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. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial 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 Kristin Sullivan SPR25/0522 Page 2 February 25, 2025 purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Conclusion The Department submitted their petition on February 24, 2025, more than ten business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact that the Department has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregation or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alberto Brito