Rita Glassman v. Melrose, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250961)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2025 SPR25/0961 Kim Upton Office Manager Melrose Police Department City of Melrose 56 West Foster Street Melrose, MA 02176 Dear Ms. Upton: On April 8, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Melrose Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records, 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 the 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, Rita Glassman, of Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 8, 2025, Ms. Glassman requested, “all copies of Police Department reports, in electronic format, relating to any motor vehicle accidents that occurred within the city from March 31, 2025 through the present.” 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 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

Kim Upton SPR25/0961 Page 2 April 9, 2025 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of 25 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: These requests are placing an undue burden on our one (1) records clerk, who is also our Payroll Administrator, Department Budget Manager, Accounts Payable and Receivable Administrator, and our Grants Manager, and station Office Manager. This individual is putting in extra unpaid hours to ensure these commercial requests are supplied on time. I find that in light of the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). Accordingly, the Department is granted an extension of 25 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or

Kim Upton SPR25/0961 Page 3 April 9, 2025 redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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; 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department requests to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records at a rate of $40.00 per hour. Commercial Purpose In its April 8th petition, the Department argues that the request is made for a commercial purpose, and provides the following information in support of its argument.

Kim Upton SPR25/0961 Page 4 April 9, 2025 Based on our experience with other records requests of this type, they are clearly for commercial purpose to either seek out new clients or establish a list of potential clients for the law firm. Included in our petition, are the weekly requests we have received and responded to prior to this petition, and the one received this day requesting a petition for extension and fees.We believe that their objective is to advance the requesters strategic business interests and is therefore a records request for commercial purpose[.] Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Based on the Department’s petition, it is my understanding that the request made by Ms. Glassman meet the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Authority of the Supervisor In its petition, the Department also requests “a time extension and an assessment of fees for any further requests from the Law Offices of Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers.” The Department is advised that in petitioning for an extension of time and a waiver of statutory limits for records requests not yet received, the Department seeks relief outside the scope of statutory authority given to the Supervisor under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii), (iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 25 business days. Further, based on the Department’s petition and my finding that the request was made for a commercial purpose, I approve the Department’s fee petition. Accordingly, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $40.00 per hour.

Kim Upton SPR25/0961 Page 5 April 9, 2025 Please be advised, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Glassman 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, §§ 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rita Glassman