Justin Grasso v. Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (SPR 20251605)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 12, 2025 SPR25/1605 Jeannemarie Joyce, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Massachusetts Convention Center Authority 415 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Dear Attorney Joyce: On June 6, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (Authority) seeking 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 Authority furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Justin Grasso. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 22, 2025, Mr. Grasso requested, “certified payrolls and other compliance documents for the MCCA-Digital Display Implementation Phase I (Marquee Project), GC Bid date: 6/9/2022.” Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. 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

Jeannemarie Joyce, Esq. SPR25/1605 Page 2 June 12, 2025 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency 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 – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, the Authority requests, “to waive statutory limits to fees pursuant to 950 CMR 32.06(4)(g).” In support of its petition, the Authority provides the following information: An initial reading of the … request indicates that responsive records will likely contain confidential information including home addresses of those who worked on the project. Therefore, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (“Authority”) must expend time redacting this information that is protected from disclosure under M.G.L., c., 4, § 7(26) (c). The request calls for records likely to contain material that will require redaction under Exemption (c). Responsive records may contain the home addresses of named individuals. The Authority estimates that it will take approximately 1 minute per page to perform the necessary redactions on each page of responsive records. Based on the above, the Authority should be allowed to charge for this work. Charging a fee in this matter is necessary because Mr. Grasso’s request

Jeannemarie Joyce, Esq. SPR25/1605 Page 3 June 12, 2025 cannot be prudently completed without redacting information under the exemption. In light of the Authority’s petition, I find the Authority has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Authority may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Authority may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Authority to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Grasso 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: Justin Grasso