Tom Ayotte v. Dracut, Town of (SPR 20252198)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 31, 2025 SPR25/2198 Erin Mulcahy Human Resources Director Town of Dracut 62 Arlington Street Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Ms. Mulcahy: On July 28, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Dracut, (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Tom Ayotte. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 17, 2025, Mr. Ayotte requested: [1] Offer letter or employment contract [for seven identified town employees][;] [2] FY2025 annual salary at the time of hire or promotion [for seven identified town employees][;] [3] Current FY2026 salary [for seven identified town employees][;] [4] Annual accrued vacation benefit [for seven identified town employees][;] [5] Current work schedule [for seven identified town employees] [;] [6] Summary of other benefits provided [for seven identified town employees][;] [7] A list of all Town (non-school) employees who have separated from employment since July 1, 2024, including names and dates of termination[;] [8] Payroll history for all employees in the Building Maintenance Department from July 1, 2023 to present, including a detailed breakdown of weekly overtime hours paid [for six identified town employees][.] 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

Erin Mulcahy SPR25/2198 Page 2 July 31, 2025 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Town requests an extension of time and argues the following in support of its request: [T]he Town estimates the time to locate, segregate and redact these records to be extraordinary and with a limited number of persons able to look at personnel records, a ten (10) day turnaround is not feasible. Subsequently, in a correspondence to Mr. Ayotte and this office on July 31, 2025, the Town clarified that it seeks an extension of 30 business days and provided the following additional information:

Erin Mulcahy SPR25/2198 Page 3 July 31, 2025 Here, the Town estimates that it will take just under 33.3 hours to review, segregate, copy and redact the responsive records. That is the equivalent of one week’s time for one employee as the Town works a 35-hour regular workweek and because the nature of the materials are sensitive, only one of two Human Resources Personnel may perform the work. The request encompasses voluminous files and electronic records that will need to be located, reviewed, segregated and redacted. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Town 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 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 determination 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

Erin Mulcahy SPR25/2198 Page 4 July 31, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Town sought permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. Subsequent to the opening of this petition, in a correspondence to Mr. Ayotte and this office on July 31, 2025, the Town clarified that it requests permission to segregate and redact the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and provided the following in support of its request: [I]t is more than reasonable to assume that some, if not all, of the responsive records include the following: Dates of Birth, Home Addresses, Medical Information and Access Rights, HIPPA Protected Information, Insurance Deductions, Social Security Numbers and other PII, Information related to minors and dependents and Performance Evaluations for those employees who received promotions, stipends or other merit-based benefits or salary adjustments. In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally as described above, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Erin Mulcahy SPR25/2198 Page 5 July 31, 2025 Please note, Mr. Ayotte 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: Tom Ayotte