Kade Crockford v. Wakefield, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251892)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 8, 2025 SPR25/1892 Lieutenant Scott T. Reboulet Wakefield Police Department 1 Union Street Wakefield, MA 01880 Dear Lieutenant Reboulet: On June 30, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Wakefield Police Department (Department) requesting a waiver of statutory limits to fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Kade Crockford, of ACLU of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 25, 2025, Ms. Crockford requested the following “records created on or after January 1, 2023, unless another time period is otherwise specified, pertaining to WPD’s use of Flock Safety and any other license plate reader technology”: [1] Contracts, agreements, budget documents, and invoices documenting WPD use of Flock Safety technology and any other license plate reader technology[;] [2] Training materials pertaining to Flock Safety technology, including its cameras and database systems[;] [3] Flock Organization Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by officials in Wakefield[;] [4] Flock Network Audits, documenting all searches of license plate reader data conducted by entities outside Wakefield[;] [5] All records of communication mentioning license plate readers or Flock Safety technology, including emails and text messages[;] and [6] Any WPD policy or procedures describing how license plate reader data is collected, processed, accessed, used, and/or shared. 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

Lieutenant Scott T. Reboulet SPR25/1892 Page 2 July 8, 2025 Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Lieutenant Scott T. Reboulet SPR25/1892 Page 3 July 8, 2025 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 Petition In its petition, the Department requests permission “. . . to charge the requestor the actual cost of searching multiple email servers to find any emails that match their criteria,” and provides the following information: [O]nly the IT Director would be able to perform this task, so [I] will submit a request to the Supervisor of Records to allow his hourly rate to be charged, which is $98. The total for the additional 11 hours would be $1,078.00. These results would then need to be reviewed and any necessary redactions made. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted at this time. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has not met its burden to assess fees in excess of $25.00 per hour. This office encourages Ms. Crockford and the Department to continue to communicate directly 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 to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Department must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kade Crockford