Michael D. Fleury v. Dracut, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251993)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/1993 Peter Bartlett Chief of Police Dracut Police Department 110 Loon Hill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Chief Bartlett: On July 10, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dracut Police Department (Department) requesting an extension of time to produce records and 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Michael Fleury. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). 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 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 SPR25/1993 Page 2 July 16, 2025 was hired by the Dracut Town Manager to review any comprehensive time earned and used by supervisors of the Dracut Police Department[.] Prior Appeal and Petition This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1699 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 25, 2025). In my June 25th determination, I found that 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). This request was also 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. Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b).

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR25/1993 Page 3 July 16, 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). 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).

Chief Peter Bartlett SPR25/1993 Page 4 July 16, 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 “the authority to charge fees for segregation and redaction of records pursuant to 950 CMR 32.06(4)(g) and (h) . . . and permission from the Supervisor for additional time to respond to this request.” In an email to this Division on July 15, 2025, Mr. Fleury objects to the Department’s petition to assess fees, arguing “. . .[i]n Chief Bartlett’s recent email, he itemizes the costs of the “review and redaction” process, as well as copying all the files twice to “streamline the redaction process”. I’m still not sure what needs to be redacted from my internal affairs investigations. They should only contain information about me. . . Unfortunately, Chief Bartlett’s response not only increased the fee but also failed to offer any alternative ways to make the receipt of my records more affordable and reasonable.” Where I previously granted the Department an extension of time and found that the Department has met its burden to explain how its response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the Department’s July 10th request to assess fees for segregation and redaction and extension of time to produce records. See SPR25/0717; see also SPR25/1699. Conclusion Accordingly, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the Department’s petition to assess a fee to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and extension of time to produce records. Please note, Mr. Fleury 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: Michael Fleury