Crystal Yormick v. Bedford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252299)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 21, 2025 SPR25/2299 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Crystal Yormick, 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 8, 2025, Ms. Yormick requested the following: [A]ll records from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for heat-related emergency calls from June 22-June 28. Please include in these logs the time and date of the call, the caller’s name, the reason for the call, the age of the caller and any other relevant demographic information, what services were provided and the location from which the call was made. On July 17, 2025 Ms. Yormick requested the following: The new request I wanted to make still regards a full log of all records from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for heat-related emergency calls but instead of being from June 22-June 28, I would like it to be from June 1-July 18 instead. Please include in these logs the time and date of the call, the caller’s name, the reason for the call, the age of the caller and any other relevant demographic information, what services were provided and the location from which the call was made. If an amendment to the initial request would mean that I would not get the initial request for June 22-28 for another ten days, I ask that this extension of the dates be a completely separate request so I might still receive the original dates I requested in a timely manner. The City responded on July 21, 2025, providing a fee estimate. 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/2299 Page 2 August 21, 2025 On July 24, 2025, Ms. Yormick narrowed her request as follows: I would like to narrow my request to all records that list the key words, ‘heat’ in their reason for the call. . . . If the city intends to charge a fee for time spent processing this request, please process the responsive records in chronological order for two hours, or until the point in time at which the city intends to begin charging fees. The City responded to the modified request on August 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Yormick petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2299, 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. 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/2299 Page 3 August 21, 2025 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 21st and August 6th Responses In its July 21, 2025 response, the City provides a total fee estimate of $461.75 and provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: The City has identified 2,457 calls occurring between June 1, 2025, and July 14, 2025. Because of how the records are kept and because of the information you are requesting, the City will have to manually go through each call note and identify which are heat related and print the corresponding call log. This is because of the different call reasons “heat related” incidents can fall under. Before providing you with the records the City is required to complete said manual search, to segregate the records, apply redactions/withholdings in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), and compile the requested records for disclosure. Exemption (a) requires a records access officer to redact or withhold certain information that falls under an active statute. The City anticipates redactions or withholdings of the following information, pursuant, but not limited to, the following statutes- - Registry of Motor Vehicle information pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2721 - Medical information pursuant to HIPAA, 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a)(1) - Criminal Offender Record Information pursuant to G.L.c. 6, § 167 - Social security and driver’s license numbers pursuant to G.L. c. 93H, § 1 The City anticipates processing approximately 2 calls per minute (30 seconds per call). This time is comprised of search, segregation, redaction/withholding and compile time in conformance with the above cited authority. This time estimate is based on the City’s experience fulfilling similar records requests, a precursory review of the potentially responsive records, how the requested records are kept, and the scope of your request. The following equation summarizes the calculated time, in hours, needed to fulfill your request: (2,457 calls) * (30 seconds/ item to search, segregate, redact/withhold and compile) = 73,710 seconds. (73,710 seconds / 60 minutes) = 1,228.5 minutes (1,228.5 minutes) * (1 hour / 60 minutes) = 20.47 hours As outlined by the Massachusetts Public Records Law, municipalities may not

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/2299 Page 4 August 21, 2025 assess a fee for the first two hours of personnel time taken to search for, compile, redact, or reproduce the record(s) requested unless said municipality is comprised of 20,000 people or less. The City of New Bedford has a population of more than 20,000 individuals. Therefore, the City is seeking payment for 20.47 hours [(18.47 hours) – (2 hours at no charge)]. The lowest paid employee capable of performing the necessary work to respond to all components of 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. Therefore, the City is seeking payment of: (18.47 hours) * ($25.00/hour) = $461.75 As soon as payment is received, the City will begin to process your request and produce the responsive records within 15 business days. In its August 6, 2025 response, following receipt of the July 24th modified request, the City states that it “will be providing a response to [Ms. Yormick] within 25 business days from receipt of [her] request due to staffing shortages and the volume of public records requests. The City anticipates applying redactions and withholdings to any records produced in accordance with the authority set forth in the City’s July 21st response (incorporated herein).” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Yormick states the following: I was told that both requests were received by the New Bedford solicitor’s office. I also specifically listed in my second request that if the amendment would lengthen the time period, then I would like this to be a second request, although this was not heeded by the solicitor’s office. . . . I am appealing the City’s response that this request will be responded to within 25 business days “due to staffing shortages and the volume of public records requests,” as detailed in [the City]’s email based on the state law that “records custodians must respond to requests within 10 business days,” as listed on the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ website. At the very least, I would like to receive “the responsive records in chronological order for two hours, or until the point in time at which the city intends to begin charging fees,” as listed in my most recent request. I was originally supposed to receive these records today, August 7. Ms. Yormick 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.

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/2299 Page 5 August 21, 2025 Additionally, given the July 24th modification to Ms. Yormick’s original requests, and the City’s intent to provide a subsequent response, I find it unnecessary to address the City’s July 21st fee estimate. Further, where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, I find that the basis of Ms. Yormick’s appeal “that this request will be responded to within 25 business days” is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is to provide Ms. Yormick with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations by August 28, 2025. 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. Ms. Yormick may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Crystal Yormick