Edward Tricker v. Dartmouth, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20252494)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 5, 2025 SPR25/2494 Sarah Haskell-Arruda Town Clerk Town of Dartmouth 400 Slocum Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Haskell-Arruda: I have received the petition of Dr. Edward Tricker appealing the response of the Town of Dartmouth (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 14, 2025, Dr. Tricker requested the following: [C]ommunications to the period beginning January 1, 2015, through the present, or from the earliest date at which electronic communications are accessible . . . . from personnel in the following departments: Town Administrator’s Office[:] Board of Health[:] Police Department[;] Planning/Zoning Department[:] . . . including: [1] Internal and external communications . . . referencing the New Bedford Police Department firing range or related concerns raised by residents, officials, or external entities; [2] Meeting agendas, minutes, and recordings from any official Town meeting in which the range or related issues were discussed; [3] Permitting documents, environmental or zoning filings, and regulatory submissions or reviews related to the range; [4] Incident reports or complaints involving noise, stray bullets, injuries, or other safety-related incidents linked to the range; [5] Environmental or public health data . . ., especially relating to wetlands and Zone II wellhead protection areas; [6] Communications with external agencies, including but not limited to MassDEP, EPA, ATF, the Massachusetts Environmental Police, and elected officials; [7] Any formal or informal assessments, strategies, or policy discussions regarding the range’s operation, risk mitigation, or intergovernmental 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

Sarah Haskell-Arruda SPR25/2494 Page 2 September 5, 2025 coordination. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Town. See SPR25/2455 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 26, 2025). In my August 26th determination, I found that where Dr. Tricker modified his request in an email to the Town and this office dated August 24, 2025, it was unnecessary to opine on the Town’s petition seeking an extension of time to produce the 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. Concurrent with its petition, the Town responded to Dr. Tricker on August 19, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Dr. Tricker petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2494, 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).

Sarah Haskell-Arruda SPR25/2494 Page 3 September 5, 2025 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). Modification of the scope of the request Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to the Town and this office dated August 24, 2025, Dr. Tricker states that he is, “writing to resolve this matter efficiently and in good faith, without unnecessary escalation or cost for either party” and provides numerous modifications to narrow the scope of his request. Subsequently, in an email to Dr. Tricker and copied to this office on August 26, 2025, the Town confirmed receipt of Dr. Tricker’s modified August 24th request. In light of Dr. Tricker’s August 24th modification of his request, I find it unnecessary to opine on the Town’s August 19th fee estimate at this time. Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Conclusion This office encourages Dr. Tricker and the Town to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Town must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dr. Edward Tricker