Jonathan Gerhardson v. Chicopee, Town of - Housing Authority (SPR 20251983)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 18, 2025 SPR25/1983 Betsy Partyka-Narey Executive Director Chicopee Housing Authority 128 Meetinghouse Road Chicopee, MA 01013 Dear Ms. Partyka-Narey: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson appealing the response of the Chicopee Housing Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 22, 2025, Mr. Gerhardson requested: [T]he following for the 90-day period preceding the date this request is fulfilled: [1] A complete export of all Site Logs from Avigilon Unity Video (ACC). Logs should be exported in .csv format and include all data fields, including, but not limited to: Event Message, Time, Type, Server Name, Device Name, and Client (Machine Name and IP Address). This includes Server Events, Device Events, Access Events, and all User Events. [2] A complete export of the Audit Log Report from Avigilon Unity Access (ACM) in .csv format, including all available data fields, specifically “Operator” and the “Before” and “After” values. [3] A complete export of the Transaction Report from Avigilon Unity Access (ACM) in .csv format, detailing physical access events … [T]he following for the 90-day period preceding the date this request is fulfilled: [4] A complete export of all Audit Logs (Configuration Logs) in JSON format. [5] A complete export of all Viewer Logs in JSON format. [6] A complete export of the Activity Log from the Alta Access system. [7] If applicable, a complete export of the DMP Audit Log … [8] A copy of the agency’s formal Log Management Policy for its physical security systems. 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

Betsy Partyka-Narey SPR25/1983 Page 2 July 18, 2025 [9] Any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for investigating incidents by reviewing security system logs. [10] Records sufficient to show the current Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) configuration. [11] Records sufficient to show the configured data retention policies within the platform itself. [12] For on-premise Unity systems, records sufficient to show the system’s backup configuration and schedules. [13] A complete copy of any and all contracts, agreements, amendments, statements of work, and related purchasing documentation with Axon Enterprise, Inc., and/or Fusus from the period of June 1, 2024, to the date this request is processed. This includes, but is not limited to, the primary agreement for the implementation or use of their real-time crime center or video-sharing platform. The Authority responded on June 25, June 26, July 2, and July 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1983, 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). The Authority’s Responses In its June 25, 2025 response, the Authority assessed a fee of $2,760.00 to provide the responsive records. The Authority estimated that producing the responsive records would require “2-3 days of work.”

Betsy Partyka-Narey SPR25/1983 Page 3 July 18, 2025 In its June 26, 2025 response, the Authority stated that it would confer with legal counsel before providing a further response. In its July 2 and July 3 responses, the Authority provided Mr. Gerhardson with information relating to the cost of certain cameras installed by the Authority. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Authority has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 2-3 days of employee time, the Authority has not provided sufficient explanation of why this amount of employee time is necessary. The Authority 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 Authority must also provide additional information regarding the tasks necessary to produce the responsive records. The Authority must also 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). Further, the Authority is advised that under the Public Records Law, 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 skill necessary to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour only if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Consequently, the Authority must clarify the hourly rate used to calculate its June 25th estimate. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Authority must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $2,760.00.00 assessed in its June 25, 2025 estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Gerhardson and the Authority 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 Authority is ordered to provide Mr. Gerhardson 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

Betsy Partyka-Narey SPR25/1983 Page 4 July 18, 2025 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Gerhardson may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Gerhardson