Michael D. Fleury v. Dracut, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251699)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 25, 2025 SPR25/1699 Peter Bartlett Chief of Police Dracut Police Department 110 Loonhill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Chief Bartlett: I have received the petition of Michael Fleury appealing the response of the Dracut 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 March 4, 2025, Mr. Fleury requested: [1] All “disciplinary files or documents” pertaining to [an identified individual] while employed by the Dracut Police Department. This should include any discipline file(s) or document(s) that the Dracut Police Department has in their possession regardless of its title, nature, or final disposition[;] [2] All documents, written or electronic, including emails that the Dracut Police Department submitted to the Massachusetts Post Commission pertaining to discipline [an identified individual] received during [their] tenure as an employee with the Dracut Police Department[;] [3] All documents, written or electronic, including emails that the Dracut Police Department submitted to the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office pertaining to discipline [an identified individual] received during [their] tenure as an employee with the Dracut Police Department for the purpose of being placed on the “Brady List”[;] [4] All documents, written or electronic, including emails that the Dracut Police Department has on file or in their possession pertaining to [an identified individual’s] “discipline related interview” with [an identified individual] who was hired by the Dracut Town Manager to review any comprehensive time earned and used by supervisors of the Dracut Police Department[.] 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

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR25/1699 Page 2 June 25, 2025 Prior Petition This request was the subject of a prior fee and time petition. See SPR25/0717 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 17, 2025). In my March 17th determination, I found that the Department had established good cause for a time extension of 25 business days, and to assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material. The Department responded on March 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Fleury petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1699, 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 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). Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Mr. Fleury’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Department’s March 14th Response In its March 14, 2025 response, the Department assessed a fee of $750.00 to provide responsive records. The Department detailed its assessed fee as follows:

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR25/1699 Page 3 June 25, 2025 The records are voluminous and will require the department Deputy Chief to physically search for, review, segregate and redact these records in order to fulfill our statutory obligation to ensure that these records are released properly … The identified reports will have to be reviewed and potentially redacted if they contain information identified as statutorily exempt from the Public Records Law. Specifically, G.L c.4 section 7(26) exemption (c) personnel or medical files or information; also any materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy … The department estimates approximately thirty hours to complete this request and seeks a fee of $750.00. Although the Department has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 30 total hours of employee time, the Department has not provided sufficient explanation of why this amount of employee time is necessary. 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. Further, the Department must clarify whether it is a municipality of 20,000 people or less and thus permitted to assess a fee for the first 2 hours of employee time spent responding to the request, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Additionally, the Department must clarify whether $25.00 per hour is the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce the requested records. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $750.00 assessed in its March 14, 2025 estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Where Mr. Fleury has objected to the Department’s claims that the responsive records contain material exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, I find that these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once responsive records are provided, Mr. Fleury may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). This office encourages Mr. Fleury 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

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR25/1699 Page 4 June 25, 2025 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 Mr. Fleury 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. Fleury 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: Michael Fleury