Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251027)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 18, 2025 SPR25/1027 Alexandra Hayden Records Clerk Chelmsford Police Department 2 Old North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Hayden: On April 14, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Chelmsford Police Department (Department) requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. 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, Stanley Mazurczyk. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 31, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “...[r]ecords which include invoices and communications (paper and digital) Department exchanged Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission (MPAC) or other contributors that lead to Department’s January 8, 2024 re- accreditation.” 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 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, § 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

Alexandra Hayden SPR25/1027 Page 2 April 18, 2025 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 Department requests that it “[b]e permitted to charge for segregation and redaction time beyond what is required by law,” and provides the following information: [T]he Department has identified approximately three hundred and thirty-nine (399) e-mails responsive to this request. [H]ere, the Department records at issue cover the Department’s recent reaccreditation process. As part of the reaccreditation, Department processes, procedures, and guidelines were evaluated and scrutinized. In particular, this

Alexandra Hayden SPR25/1027 Page 3 April 18, 2025 likely includes files related to Exemption (n) concerning the security or safety of persons or buildings. Additionally, the records are likely to trigger sundry other exemptions – all as detailed in the fee estimate – including Exemptions (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (j), (l), (o), and (p). Exemption (a): Exemption (a) covers a variety of topics that sundry statutes prevent disclosure of. As the Town compiles the records responsive to this request, it must redact Exemption (a) material should any appear. Exemption (b): To the extent that the proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires withholding of internal personnel rules and practices, such rules and practices will be withheld. Exemption (c): Should potentially responsive records contain references to confidential personnel and medical information, such records may be redacted after a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Exemption (d): To the extent that the records relate to policy positions still under development by the Department, such records will be withheld. Exemption (e): To the extent that the notes prepared by a Department employee that are personally to the employee and not kept as part of the records of the Department exist, such note will be withheld. Exemption (f): To the extent that the records contain investigatory materials compiled out of public view, the disclosure of which would so prejudice effective law enforcement that disclosure not be in the public interest, such records will be withheld. Exemption (j): To the extent that the records contain the names and addresses of persons applying for licenses to carry or possess firearms, such records will be withheld. Exemption (l): To the extent that the records contain questions and answers, scoring keys and sheets and other materials used to develop, administer or score a test intended for re-use in the future, such records will be withheld. . . . Exemption (o): To the extent that the records contain the home address, personal e-mail address and home telephone number of employees of the Department or Town of Chelmsford, such records will be withheld.

Alexandra Hayden SPR25/1027 Page 4 April 18, 2025 Exemption (p): To the extent that the records contain the home address, personal e-mail address and home telephone number of family members of employees of the Department or Town of Chelmsford, such records will be withheld. In an email to this Division on April 15, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk objects to the Department’s petition to assess fees, arguing “...[a]ttached please find SPR23/0672 Determination to which Chelmsford Police Department (Department) never responded. This is relevant because the request for records dated March 31, 2025 is seeking the same records three years later. Your lack of enforcement is responsible for Department’s deceptive, evasive, and irresponsible behavior. I seek documents, not email addresses, medical records, or phone numbers. This Department is corrupt to its core.” Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department 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 Accordingly, I find the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, this office encourages Mr. Mazurczyk and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality or agency 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 or agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Please note, Mr. Mazurczyk 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: Stanley Mazurczyk