Altin Berxhiku v. Department of State Police (SPR 20252120)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 31, 2025 SPR25/2120 Allison Mondello Public Records Manager Office of the Chief Legal Counsel Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Mondello: I have received the petition of Altin Berxhiku appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of State Police (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 21, 2025, Mr. Berxhiku requested the following records for the time frame December 1, 2023 to April 30, 2025: [1] All communications (emails, texts, internal memos, call logs, meeting notes) between [identified individuals][;] [2] Any records showing and why sealed case information was accessed, and under what legal authority you were granted access to said records. Please provide the justification or order permitting you to review a sealed, dismissed case[;] [3] All drafts, notes, or communications prepared in connection with the February 26, 2024 interview referenced in the report, including any recordings or transcripts[;] [4] All documents or metadata related to your analysis of the letters written by [two identified individuals] including any software or tools used to assess grammar, spelling, or authorship — and any qualifications you may hold in forensic linguistics[;] [5] All communications, email chains, memos, and transmission records showing how the February 28, 2024 interview report authored by [identified individuals] was sent, shared, or transmitted to [identified individuals][;] [6] All internal notes or justifications concerning the retention, filing, or public release of this sealed case material, and whether legal counsel reviewed or approved such dissemination[;] 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

Allison Mondello SPR25/2120 Page 2 July 31, 2025 [7] The legal basis— if one exists— for reopening or investigating a sealed case, without a warrant, subpoena, or judicial order, and without notifying me of the right to counsel. Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/1286; SPR25/1288 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 16, 2025) and SPR25/1493 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 3, 2025). In my June 3rd determination, I ordered the Department to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with the Public Records Law. The Department responded on July 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Berxhiku petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2120, was opened as a result. 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 under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Department’s July 16th Response In its prior May 27, 2025 response, the Department assessed a fee of $187.50 to provide Mr. Berxhiku with 232 email communications and related attachments. The Department detailed its fee estimate as follows: The Massachusetts State Police is a law enforcement agency with various missions ranging from public safety and criminal justice to homeland security and emergency preparedness, a large percentage of department and records may relate to highly sensitive matters. Further, given our office’s and our agencies’

Allison Mondello SPR25/2120 Page 3 July 31, 2025 collaboration with other state and federal agencies on criminal investigations and other matters regarding state and national security, the resulting records undoubtedly contain privileged and exempt information such as intelligence and investigative data, personnel, private, and security related information, as well as information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of government necessary to withhold to ensure the proper performance of the Massachusetts State Police. These categories of information are specifically exempt pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (b), (c), (f), and/or (n) and are not subject to public disclosure. Accordingly, the information must be segregated and redacted from the records before the records are produced to a third party such as the requestor … The Department estimates that it would take approximately Three (3) minutes to review each email and attachment, and to segregate and make the redactions as described above. Accordingly, the Department estimates that it would take approximately (3 min. x 232 = 696 minutes; 696 minutes/60 minutes = approximately 11.5 hours-4 hours) = 7.5 hours at a rate of $25/hour (representing the hourly wage of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task) resulting in a total cost of $187.50. In its July 16, 2025 response, the Department clarified that it was assessing a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material only where required by law pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10B, G. L. c. 41, § 97D, G. L. c. 6, § 172, G. L. c. 119, §§1-84, G. L. c. 71, §34D, G. L. c. 276, §100B, G. L. c. 120, §21, G. L. c. 209A, §8, G. L. c. 111E, §18, and G. L. c. 214, § 1B. The Department further stated that its estimate of 3 minutes to review each responsive communication was calculated “… in consideration of prior requests of a similar nature and the length of time taken to review the emails and corresponding attachments. Given the sensitive nature of the records and statutory regulations mentioned above, it is necessary to conduct a thorough review.” Where the Department has explained the amount of time it requires to search for, compile, and reproduce the requested records and confirmed that the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks is paid more than $25.00 per hour, I find that the Department has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Berxhiku is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Allison Mondello SPR25/2120 Page 4 July 31, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Altin Berxhiku