Catherine Wauczinski v. Easthampton, City of (SPR 20252145)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 28, 2025 SPR25/2145 Mary Ann Giza City Clerk City of Easthampton 50 Payson Avenue Easthampton, MA 01027 Dear Ms. Giza: On July 21, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Easthampton (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records. On July 24, 2025, this office received the petition of Mark A. Tanner, Esq., of Bacon Wilson, P.C., on behalf of the City of Easthampton requesting 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 City furnished a copy of the petitions to the requestor, Catherine Wauczinski. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 18, 2025, Ms. Wauczinski requested “all emails for the Mayor’s Executive Assistant, [an identified individual] from the date of hire to June 18, 2025” On July 10, 2025, Ms. Wauczinski stated “[h]ow about we start with all emails from January 1st 2023 to present.” 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 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

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2145 Page 2 July 28, 2025 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In each of its petition, the City requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following in support of its request: “[t]he city requires more time to compile and redact the data.” On July 24, 2025, in a correspondence to Ms. Wauczinski and this Office, an attorney for the City provided the following additional arguments in support of its time petition: The current request is very broad and far-reaching, especially considering that it seeks 86,323 records. After collecting these records, City staff would need to examine, segregate, and redact the records, as needed, before disclosing them. There is no dedicated staff assigned to review and redact records responsive to FOIA requests. As such, the records sought by the present Request would need to be retrieved, segregated, reviewed, and redacted during normal business hours in addition to completion of regular duties. Requiring this work be done within the ten (10) day limitation would cause the City significant hardship and would effectively require that virtually all administrative employees stop working on City business and attend only to this Request since it is estimated to take total worktime of fifty-four (54) weeks at forty (40) hours per week to complete. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records and the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. 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

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2145 Page 3 July 28, 2025 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. 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; 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). 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).

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2145 Page 4 July 28, 2025 Petition to Assess Fees In its July 24th petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the City argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (c), (d), and (h) of the Public Records Law: However, given the breadth of information which crosses the Mayor’s (and therefore [an identified individual’s]) desk each day, the records responsive to the request will also likely include Personnel Rules and Practices exempt under Exemption (b); Personnel Records and decisions exempt under Exemption (c); Policy Formulation/Work Product Materials exempt under Exemption (d) proposals and bids for the procurement of City goods and services exempt under Exemption (h)… In order to safeguard the private information of the City’s citizens, its employees, its deliberative process and its ongoing legal matters it is necessary that each and every email be carefully reviewed segregated and redacted so as to insure all statutory and other requirements are met. In light of the nature of [an identified individual’s] position and the depth and breadth of information which she is exposed to by email on a daily basis, I believe the City has met its burden to explain how given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Ms. Wauczinski is advised that she may appeal the City’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1) Please note, Ms. Wauczinski 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).

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2145 Page 5 July 28, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Catherine Wauczinski Mark Tanner, Esq.