Shawn Wiley v. Danvers, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251364)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 30, 2025 SPR25/1364 James Lovell Chief of Police Danvers Police Department 120 Ash Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Chief Lovell: I have received the petition of Shawn Wiley appealing the response of the Danvers Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 28, 2025, Mr. Wiley requested copies of the following records concerning an identified Danvers police officer: [1] Employment History and Promotions: [a] Dates of employment and service records[;] [b] Records of promotions, including dates and positions attained[;] [c] Performance evaluations and commendation[;] [2] Disciplinary Actions and Investigations: [a] Records of any internal affairs investigations involving [an identified individual][;] [b] Disciplinary actions taken, including reprimands, suspensions, or terminations[;] [c] Complaints filed against [an identified individual], whether by colleagues or members of the public[;] [3] Training and Certifications: [a] Records of completed training programs and certifications[;] [b] Attendance at professional development or continuing education courses[;] [4] Correspondence and Reports: [a] Any correspondence related to [an identified individual’s] conduct or performance[;] [b] Reports or memos authored by or concerning [an identified individual]. 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

James Lovell SPR25/1364 Page 2 May 30, 2025 Prior Petition This request was the subject of a previous fee and time petition. See SPR25/1318 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 14, 2025). In my May 14th determination, I found that the Department had established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. I further found that the Department had met its burden to assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material. The Department responded on May 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Wiley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1364, 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, 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 Department’s May 12th Response In its May 12, 2025 response, the Department assessed a fee of $37,700.00 to provide Mr. Wiley with responsive records. The Department estimated that it possessed 45,307 records potentially responsive to the request, and that it would require 1,510 hours to locate, review, and redact said records, at rate of $25.00 per hour. In an email communication to this office on May 27, 2025, the Department stated that the requested records were the subject of an ongoing dispute before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, MCAD Docket No. 24BPA01461. The Department further stated that Item 4 of the request had failed to meet the standard set forth in Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).

James Lovell SPR25/1364 Page 3 May 30, 2025 Items 1, 2, and 3 – Active Administrative Proceeding 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending matter before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the reasonableness of the Department’s assessed fee as it related to Items 1, 2, and 3 of the request. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Item 4 – Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “[a]ny correspondence related to …” and “[r]eports or memos authored by or concerning …” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Wiley may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Wiley has provided the needed clarification, the Department must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Mr. Wiley and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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

James Lovell SPR25/1364 Page 4 May 30, 2025 to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Wiley 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shawn Wiley James Donnelly, Esq.