Joyce Rowley v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20250811)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 3, 2025 SPR25/0811 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Joyce Rowley appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 9, 2024, Ms. Rowley requested: [A]ny and all written or recorded correspondence, including phone logs, texts and email, by and between city employees to include the New Bedford Police Department, Buttonwood Zoo employees, and Buttonwood Park Zoological Society employees for the period May 13, 2024 to present regarding any incidents leading up to the Harassment Protection Order for [an identified individual] issued December 5, 2024 and served December 8, 2024. The City provided responses on December 23 and December 30, 2024. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Rowley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0811, was opened as a result. 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 (two) 2 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, 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/0811 Page 2 April 3, 2025 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). The City’s December 23rd and 30th Responses In its December 23, 2024 response, the City provided Ms. Rowley with responsive records and informed her that it had so far expended two hours of staff time in responding to the request. The City assessed a fee of $1,117.50 to provide the remaining 1,341 responsive emails. The City stated that it would require two minutes per email to segregate and redact exempt material pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, totaling 44.7 hours of staff time. The City assessed a rate of $25.00 per hour, and confirmed that the lowest paid employee with the skill necessary to respond to the request is compensated at a rate that exceeds $25.00 per hour. In an email communication to the City on December 24, 2025, Ms. Rowley sought “… the names of the persons sending and receiving email so as to perhaps reduce [her] request.” In its December 30, 2024 response, the City referred Ms. Rowley to its previous fee estimate, and informed her that “[t]he City is unable to identify the names of the persons sending and receiving the emails without performing a further search and compilation of the potentially responsive records.” The City reiterated that it had already expended two hours of staff time responding to the request, and encouraged Ms. Rowley to consider a modification of the scope of the request. In her March 25, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rowley characterized her December 24th email as “… a separate request not subject to the two hour limit.” Ms. Rowley further stated that she was seeking to modify the scope of her request, but was unable to do so without the names of relevant senders and recipients. Ms. Rowley is advised that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. This office encourages Ms. Rowley and the City to continue communicating to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate the provision of any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(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 the records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/0811 Page 3 April 3, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Rowley is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joyce Rowley