Meredith Murphy v. Southborough, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20252252)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 8, 2025 SPR25/2252 Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy Records Access Officer Southborough Police Department 32 Cordaville Road Southborough, MA 01772 Dear Lieutenant McCarthy: On August 1, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Southborough Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request . 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Meredith Murphy. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 23, 2025, Ms. Murphy requested “. . .[a]ll police investigations at Fay School dating back to 2010, with appropriate redactions, as allowed including, but not limited to: [identified individuals], any alcohol and drug investigation, any sex abuse and assault investigations, 2017 sexual hazing involving 6 boys.” 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 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

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR25/2252 Page 2 August 8, 2025 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). Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests “a 30-day extension” and provides the following information in support of its request: [W]ith respect to the request, we have a multitude of responsive records over the past 15 years. [T]he scope and breadth of the present request is quite broad and somewhat vague. Moreover, it is unlimited in time. It will require hours of work by a Southborough Police Department employee to search for any potentially responsive records. The Department estimates that it will take approximately 2 hours to complete the search of the Department’s databases and records to identify records responsive to the request. [The Department] anticipates that it will need to read, review, and segregate each page of material and then potentially apply redactions/withholdings required by statute. The Department anticipates that this will require a total of 15 total hours of work. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department 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

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR25/2252 Page 3 August 8, 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR25/2252 Page 4 August 8, 2025 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a), the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c), of the Public Records Law: [G]iven the nature of some of the requests, the Department will need to read, review, and segregate every responsive page and then make any redactions/withholdings required by law. . . . [S]ome of the records may also contain private information protected from release. Under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), public record access officers may redact “. . . materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. . .” Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests to charge “an hourly rate of $55.85 per hour.” The Department provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: [T]he lowest paid employee capable of performing the necessary work to respond to the request has an hourly rate of $55.85 per hour. This is because the records access officer is the lowest paid one certified to understand the public records law and who has access to sensitive investigations. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted at this time. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information discussed above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). However, I find that the Department has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour.

Lieutenant Sean P. McCarthy SPR25/2252 Page 5 August 8, 2025 When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Ms. Murphy within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Ms. Murphy 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: Meredith Murphy