Ryan Kath v. Mansfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252211)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 11, 2025 SPR25/2211 John J. Ellard, Jr. Treasurer/Collector Office of the Treasurer Town of Mansfield Town Hall 6 Park Row Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Mr. Ellard: I have received the petition of Ryan Kath, of NBC Universal 10 Boston, appealing the response of the Town of Mansfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 14, 2025, Mr. Kath requested “all payroll records for [a named individual] from January 1, 2025 thru present.” The Town responded on July 24, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. Kath petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2211, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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

John J. Ellard, Jr. SPR25/2211 Page 2 August 11, 2025 If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Kath argues the following: I have requested payroll records dozens of times from municipalities all over the Commonwealth—including Mansfield—and have never paid to receive them. The records are standard public documents that do not include personal information that would require redactions. I’m attaching several examples of payroll records I’ve received in the past via public records request—including Mansfield. As you can see, there are no redactions necessary on the documents. Even if there were redactions of personal info required, my request is likely comprised of a 10-page report that would not take very long to review. The Town’s July 24th Fee Estimate In its July 24, 2025 response, the Town provides a total fee estimate of $125, and provides the following information in support of its fee estimate:

John J. Ellard, Jr. SPR25/2211 Page 3 August 11, 2025 The Town has performed a preliminary assembly and analysis of the potentially responsive records in regard to your request. Please be advised that a fee will be assessed for the costs for the time associated with searching for, compiling, segregating, reproducing and redacting the requested records as required by law. See G.L. c. 66 §10(d)(iii). There are dozens of records that must be compiled, analyzed, and potentially redacted in accordance with the law. The Town estimates that it will take a minimum of five (5) hours to search for, compile, redact and produce the requested records, inclusive of the time already dedicated to your request. As the Town is a municipality with a population in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) people, a fee will not be imposed for the first two (2) hours dedicated to your request. Based on the Town’s good faith estimate, a fee of one hundred twenty-five ($125.00) dollars will be required which is based on an estimated five (5) total hours at $25.00 an hour to complete your request(s). Please be advised that the actual cost and fee of producing the records may vary upon preparation of such record(s). In this case, based on the Town’s response, it is unclear why the Town requires five hours to search for, compile, redact, and reproduce the records. The Town must provide further details regarding the tasks involved and what each task entails, including the time it is allocating to compiling, segregating, redacting and reproducing the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Further, in its response, the Town has not stated whether the hourly rate being used is equal to or less than that of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the tasks. Additionally, although the Town has stated that “a fee will not be imposed for the first two (2) hours,” it appears from the Town’s fee estimate that the Town is in fact charging for all five hours of work. The Town must clarify these matters. In accordance with the Public Records Law, 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 Town is advised that information that is “required by law” to be segregated or redacted is found in statutes that explicitly indicate that certain records or information are not public records. Some common examples are the student record statute (G. L. c. 71, § 34D), the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act (G. L. c. 6, § 167), and laws regarding the confidentiality of domestic violence records (G. L. c. 41, § 97D; G. L. c. 41, § 98F; G. L. c. 209A, § 8). These statutes operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Segregation or redaction under the attorney-client privilege is also interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly, the Town must provide further explanation as to whether the redactions described in the fee estimate are required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Town must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d).

John J. Ellard, Jr. SPR25/2211 Page 4 August 11, 2025 Further, where Mr. Kath has provided samples of records that he previously received from the Town without redaction, this office encourages Mr. Kath and the Town to communicate directly 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 Town is ordered to provide Mr. Kath 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 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Kath