Elizabeth Paskowski v. Somerset, Town of - Water Department (SPR 20251582)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 12, 2025 SPR25/1582 Jacquelyn Ferreira Office Manager Somerset Water Department 3249 County Street Somerset, MA 02726 Dear Ms. Ferreira: I have received the petition of Elizabeth Paskowski appealing the response of the Somerset Water Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 23, 2025, Ms. Paskowski requested records concerning the following subjects: [1] How and when the $2,500,000.00 that was transferred from the retained earnings in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund – in accordance with Article 8 of the Special Town Meeting on February 8, 2025 – was used. [2] What was the remaining balance that was to be combined with the $3,500,000 in accordance with Article 32 of the Annual Town Meeting on May 23, 2025. [3] What is the balance of the newly established Wastewater Capital Stabilization Account, including all activity from May 19, 2025 to May 23, 2025. The Department responded on June 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Paskowski petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1582, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a supplemental response on June 11, 2025. 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 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

Jacquelyn Ferreira SPR25/1582 Page 2 June 12, 2025 ($.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 June 4th and June 11th Responses In its June 4, 2025 response, the Department assessed a fee of $50.00 to provide the responsive records. The Department estimated that it would require two hours of employee time to search for responsive records, at an hourly rate of $25.00. The Department confirmed that a rate of $25.00 per hour reflected the compensation of the lowest paid person with the skill necessary to respond to the request. The Department further stated that it had fewer than 20,000 residents and was consequently permitted to assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time spent searching for responsive records. In its June 11, 2025 response, the Department stated, “… the three different topics requested are also for information that is not readily available and would need to be researched and reviewed for possible redactions.” Although the Department has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take two hours of employee time, the Department has not provided sufficient explanation of why two hours of employee time is necessary. Specifically, in light of its June 11th response, the Department must clarify how many hours of search time and how many hours of segregation and redaction time it requires to produce the responsive records. The Department must also provide additional information regarding the tasks necessary to produce the responsive records and the number of pages it possesses which are responsive to the request. Additionally, it appears from the Department’s June 11th response that the Department intends to redact the responsive records. Under the Public Records Law a fee may 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 pursuant to a petition under G. L. c.

Jacquelyn Ferreira SPR25/1582 Page 3 June 12, 2025 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the Department must clarify on what basis it intends to redact the responsive records. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $50.00 assessed in its June 4, 2025 estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Paskowski and the Department to communicate further in order 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 to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Paskowski 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. Ms. Paskowski may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Elizabeth Paskowski