Anastasia Lennon v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20252251)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 14, 2025 SPR25/2251 Romina Moniz Administrative Manager Central Records Access Officer City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Moniz: I have received the petition of Anastasia Lennon, of the New Bedford Light, appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 1, 2025, Ms. Lennon requested the following: [1.] a copy of incoming [named individual]’s application for the position of police chief [2.] all emails (and email attachments) that contain [two specified terms] including in the subject line and/or sender or recipient fields The date range of this request is from April 7 to the date this request is processed. If the city intends to charge a fee for time spent processing this request, please process the responsive records in chronological order until two hours have elapsed, or until the point in time at which the city intends to begin charging fees. Please provide an itemized fee estimate identifying any remaining responsive records. The City responded on July 29, 2025, providing numerous responsive records and a fee estimate for others. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Lennon petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2251, 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 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

Romina Moniz SPR25/2251 Page 2 August 14, 2025 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. 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). The City’s July 29th Response In its July 29, 2025 response, the City provides numerous responsive records, and a fee estimate totaling $119 for the remaining records. The City provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: In providing the attached records and the initial search, the City has expended over two hours’ worth of work thus far. There are approximately 143 potentially

Romina Moniz SPR25/2251 Page 3 August 14, 2025 responsive records remaining matching the specifications provided in your request. The City provides the following good-faith fee estimate to perform the remaining work necessary to fulfill your request. Before providing you with the requested records, the City will need to finalize its search, compile the records, and where required apply redactions or withholdings. The City anticipates that it may need to redact/withhold records pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), as well as the common law principles of attorney-client and work-product. Under Exemption (a), it is anticipated that redactions/withholdings may have to be made according, but not limited, to G.L. c. 93H, § 1, to remove personal information as defined by statute such as license numbers or social security numbers. The City anticipates that it will take approximately (2) minutes to review/segregate/compile each potentially responsive page (or “item”) remaining and apply redactions or withholdings where required pursuant to common law principles of attorney-client privilege and G.L. c. 93H, § 1 to remove financial information and data. This time estimate is based on how the requested records are kept, the City’s experience fulfilling similar records requests (about 2 minutes per item) and the scope of your request. The following equation summarizes the calculated time, in hours, needed to complete your request: (143 potentially responsive items) * (2 minutes/item to review/segregate/compile and make redactions or withholdings in accordance with the above cited authority) = 286 minutes (286 minutes) * (1 hour/60 minutes) = 4.76 hours The lowest paid employee capable of performing the necessary work to complete your request has an hourly rate that exceeds $25.00 per hour. Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the maximum hourly rate that can be charged is $25.00 per hour. The City is therefore seeking payment of (4.76 hours) * ($25.00/hour) = $119.00. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Lennon argues the following: . . . I specifically requested that I receive records in chronological order for the first two hours spent processing, and a fee estimate for the remaining records. . . . [T]he records provided . . . all date to June 24. The date range of my request started on April 7. As the city has previously cited a 10-business day period for it to respond to questions I have asked about my public records requests, I am filing an appeal with [the Supervisor of Public Records] regarding the city’s erroneous provision of records (for the first two hours of free processing) in reverse chronological order, when I requested chronological.

Romina Moniz SPR25/2251 Page 4 August 14, 2025 I am asking the Supervisor of Records to require the city to provide records processed in two hours starting with records dated April 7 and going in chronological order. Upon review of the appeal petition, it appears Ms. Lennon objects only to the records she has been provided and not to the City’s fee estimate. Ms. Lennon is advised that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. This office encourages Ms. Lennon and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Lennon may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. 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). Conclusion Please note that, in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Ms. Lennon in her appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Lennon 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anastasia E. Lennon