Tom Duggan v. Lawrence, City of - City Attorney's Office (SPR 20252233)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 14, 2025 SPR25/2233 Timothy Houten, Esq. City Attorney City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Attorney Houten: I have received the petition of Tom Duggan, of The Valley Patriot, appealing the response of the City of Lawrence (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 18, 2024, Mr. Duggan requested the following records: [1] All reports, CAD’s, notes, memos, FIO’s or any other records or documents mentioning the name of [identified individuals] from January 2023 to present date. [2] [A]ll emails, interoffice memos, all correspondence to and from [an identified individual] . . . for the same time period, as well as all documents showing complaints about [an identified individual], disciplinary actions taken, and steps to rectify any and all complaints from members of the public or other city workers. On March 11, 2025, Mr. Duggan modified his request as follows: “... for now restrict these to emails to and from [an identified individual]. If I require additional emails I will send a new request.” Previous Petition and Previous Appeals This request was the subject of a previous petition. See SPR25/0098 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2025). In this petition, I found that the City submitted its petition on January 10, 2025, more than ten business days after receipt of the request; therefore, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records was not granted. This matter was also the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1346 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 28, 2025) and SPR25/1954 Determination of the Supervisor of 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

Timothy Houten, Esq. SPR25/2233 Page 2 August 14, 2025 Records (July 22, 2025). In my July 22nd determination, I learned that the City sent a further response to Mr. Duggan on July 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Duggan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2233, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a further response on August 13, 2025, which Mr. Duggan appealed. 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 (two) 2 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 July 31, 2025 appeal, Mr. Duggan asserts, “[i]t seems as though the city attorney is purposely trying to prevent us from getting these records. Emails containing names of homeless people being services are not exempt, emails to third parties about personnel issues are not exempt. . .” [sic] In his August 13, 2025 response, Mr. Duggan stated, “. . . I reiterate. There is nothing statutorily exempt from a homeless coordinator. She has no HIPPA information and if she does that’s something we all need to know given that she is not HIPPA Certified. She is not in charge of personnel records and any information about homeless persons that she provided services to are not exempt as they are seeing services from a municipality.” The City’s July 22nd and August 13th Responses In its July 22, 2025 response, the City provided a fee estimate of $5,625.00 and stated as follows: The e-mail search was conducted by the IT department which has exclusive

Timothy Houten, Esq. SPR25/2233 Page 3 August 14, 2025 control over e-mail histories, considering the employee in question no longer works for the City. No one in the IT department makes less than $25.00 per hour. The cost of the time assembling the e-mails was at the lowest cost per hour of $25.00 per hour with the first two hours of research being free. The IT department spent 8 hours assembling the 15,000 e-mails related to [an identified individual]. It is believed that many of the e-mails contain statutorily exempt in formation. MGL ch 4 sec 7 (26) (a) requiring redaction before disclosure. The time needed to review and redact this information for over 15,000 e-mails would require approximately 225 hours of work at $25.00 an hour or $5,625.00. In its August 13, 20025 response, the City stated as follows: It is believed that many of the e-mails contain statutorily exempt information. MGL ch 4 sec 7 (26) (a) requiring redaction before disclosure. The time needed to review and redact this information for over 15,000 e-mails would require approximately 225 hours of work at $25.00 an hour or $5,625.00. In an effort to resolve this matter the City would be willing to reduce the charge to less than the actual cost to the City. The City would accept $2,812.00 for the work on the 15,000 emails requested. We would request payment in advance and refund any amount not used. Although the City has estimated that the process of segregating and/or redacting responsive documents will take 225 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the City requires this amount of time to produce responsive records. Specifically, it is uncertain how many minutes per page the City requires to segregate and/or redact the records. Further, although the City has indicated that redactions are required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, I find the City must provide the applicable statutes. As such, the City must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $2,812.00, is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). In light of the City’s response, I encourage Mr. Duggan and the City to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Duggan may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable time periods or factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Timothy Houten, Esq. SPR25/2233 Page 4 August 14, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Duggan with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 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. Mr. Duggan may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tom Duggan