Joseph Colangelo v. Plymouth County Commissioners (SPR 20251437)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 5, 2025 SPR25/1437 Francis G. Basler Jr. Records Access Officer/Administrator County of Plymouth 44 Obery Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Dear Mr. Basler: I have received the petition of Joseph Colangelo appealing the response of the County of Plymouth (County) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 17, 2025, Mr. Colangelo requested the following records for the period January 2021 through April 17, 2025: [1] All communications in any form that state or refer to the Town of Hanover missing the deadline to submit the Sylvester building ARPA Request. [2] All communications and/or records on any and all building improvement projects that were applied for ARPA funding to the County. A review of information on the County’s website reveals that several projects similar to Hanover’s received funding. [3] Any and all records between the County and/or Plymouth County community and Clifton, Larson, Allen LLP (CLA) that relate in any way to any and all building improvement projects under ARPA that CLA was involved in for the County. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1108 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 6, 2025). In my May 6th determination, I found that the County must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, I found that the County must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. 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

Francis G. Basler Jr. SPR25/1437 Page 2 June 5, 2025 The County provided Mr. Colangelo with a response on May 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the County’s response, Mr. Colangelo petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1437, 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). Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Colangelo stated, “[t]he County’s answer provides no details on how much time is needed it merely claims there are ‘thousands’ of emails and 11 County employees involved in the ARPA program. Additionally, I have a hard time understanding how any of these records would require redactions.” The County’s May 20th Response In its May 20, 2025 response, the County confirmed a fee estimate of $5,084.92 to provide responsive records. In support, the County stated: Since your request includes all County employees, you have cast an incredibly wide net for your request. There were eleven County employees involved in the ARPA program. Each of these employees must review their emails, then review each email for appropriate content-building improvement projects. If the content of the email matches the requested content, then the employee must print their email, then submit the collection to the records officer for distribution to you. Since the request covers the period December 2021 through the request date of

Francis G. Basler Jr. SPR25/1437 Page 3 June 5, 2025 April 7, 2025, this is a huge universe of emails to search through, literally thousands per employee. In its prior May 2, 2025 response, the County provided details regarding the search of 10,877 ARPA emails from eleven employees as follows: The time to locate, identify, pull from the files and re-shelve or refile a public record First 4 hours credit (no charge per statute) $-100.00 105.80 hours x $25.00 per hour (per state law) $2,645.22 50,788 pages x $0.05 center per page $2,539.40 Total Due $5,084.92 The County also stated, “[r]ate of $25.00 per hour is determinable by MGL. See MGL c.66§ 10 (if a municipality is required to devote more than 4 hours of employee’s time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, the records access officer 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). In a telephone conference between an attorney at the Public Records Division and the County, the County advised that there are no redactions required and the fee estimate is for search and copying only. Although the County has estimated that the process of searching for the responsive records will take 105.80 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the County requires this many hours to produce the responsive records. It is not clear what tasks are involved in the search process. As such, the County must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. Additionally, it appears that the responsive records are emails which may be able to be sorted digitally. Thus, it is unclear why the County is assessing a fee for copying 50,788 pages of records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). The County must clarify. I encourage Mr. Colangelo and the County to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Colangelo may wish to narrow his request or provide additional factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The County must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Francis G. Basler Jr. SPR25/1437 Page 4 June 5, 2025 For the reasons discussed above, I find the County must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the County is ordered to provide Mr. Colangelo with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Colangelo may appeal the substantive nature of the County’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Colangelo