Patrick Courtney v. Lawrence, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20252497)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 5, 2025 SPR25/2497 Eileen O’Connor Bernal City Clerk City of Lawrence City Hall, Room 107 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Ms. Bernal: I have received the petition of Patrick Courtney, of Foundation for Fair Contracting of MA, 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 July 15, 2025, Mr. Courtney requested “certified payroll records for all work performed on the Leahy Elementary School Project.” The City responded on July 15, 2025 and assigned reference number 2025-FOIA-879 to this request. The City further responded on August 21, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. Courtney petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2497, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response on September 3, 2025. 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 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

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/2497 Page 2 September 5, 2025 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). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Courtney argues, “I am writing to your office to file an appeal for excessive fees to redact social security numbers from a certified payroll record. I assume that the city is redacting SS# as names and addresses are a part of the public record.” The City’s August 21st Fee Estimate In its August 21, 2025 response, the City provided Mr. Courtney with a copy of a fee estimate of $28,417, which the City had previously provided in response to an identical June 11, 2025 request. In a further response to Mr. Courtney and this office on September 3, 2025, the City provides additional information in support of its fee estimate. In its August 21st fee estimate, the City provides the following information: The City will need to rely on the Owners’ Project Manager to complete this work. As the first two (2) hours of time are non-chargeable, the anticipated cost is approximately $28,417 as of the date of the FOIA.

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/2497 Page 3 September 5, 2025 The breakdown for redacting the payroll records is as follows: There are approximately 1,300 payroll records to date. At an average of 10 minutes per payroll to review and redact, it amounts to 13,000 minutes (approx.= 216.66 hours. For Jennifer or me to supervise the work done by an admin assistant, the approx. cost at our contract rates shall be: Admin. - 216.66 hours @ $85/ hour = $18,417 Supvn. - 40 hours@ $250/hour = $10,000 Total $28,417 With an additional 200+ payroll records submitted since July, the cost to redact would exceed $34,000. After the payment is issued, the OPM will need at least 30 days to complete the work assignment. In its September 3rd response, the City provided the following additional information: The request submitted is broad and unspecific (including “all certified payrolls”, which are increasing in number each week), requiring the review of a very large volume of documents. Each record must be carefully examined to identify and remove legally protected or private information before release. This redaction process is necessary to comply with the law and to safeguard sensitive data, but it is also time-intensive and consumes staff resources. The pricing proposed reflects the amount of work we believe will be involved in reviewing, preparing, and redacting the requested records. To help reduce both cost and time, the requester may consider narrowing the scope of the request by identifying particular contractors or trades that are most relevant to their needs. These records are managed by the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM). Their cost breakdown is as follows: - Approximately 1,300+ payroll records to date - Average review/redaction time: 10 minutes per record - Total review/redaction time: 13,000 minutes (≈216.66 hours) - Supervised work by an Administrative Assistant: 216.66 hours @ $85/hour = $18,417 - Supervisory oversight: 40 hours @ $250/hour = $10,000 Estimated Total: $28,417 The OPM has indicated that it will require at least 30 days to complete the assignment after the issuance of payment.

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/2497 Page 4 September 5, 2025 Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate The City is advised that under the Public Records Law, 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 records, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour, unless such rate has been 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). Consequently, it is unclear how the City may assess fees at the rates of $85 per hour and $250 per hour. As noted above, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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 is advised that information that is “required by law” to be segregated or redacted is found in statutes that explicitly indicate that certain records or information are not public records. Some common examples are the student record statute (G. L. c. 71, § 34D), the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act (G. L. c. 6, § 167), and laws regarding the confidentiality of domestic violence records (G. L. c. 41, § 97D; G. L. c. 41, § 98F; G. L. c. 209A, § 8). These statutes operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Segregation or redaction under the attorney-client privilege is also interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly, the City must provide further explanation as to whether the redactions described in the fee estimate are required by law. Please note that under the Public Records Law, a municipality may assess fees to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 CMR 32.07 (2)(i). In this case, it is unclear how the City may assess a fee “to supervise the work done” or for “supervisory oversight.” Particularly, it is uncertain how such a task constitutes time to search for, compile, segregate, or reproduce records. Additionally, please note that the City may not assess a fee for the time it takes to prepare a response in responding to a public records request. Additionally, it is unclear why the City requires “10 minutes per record” to review and redact the records. The City must provide further details regarding the contents of the records and why it would take 10 minutes to review each one. For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Certified Payroll Records The City is also advised that disclosure of certified payroll records is governed by G. L. c. 149, § 27B, which states in relevant part: Every contractor, subcontractor or public body engaged in said public works by an agency ... or municipality or any subdivision thereof to which sections twenty-

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/2497 Page 5 September 5, 2025 seven and twenty-seven A apply shall keep a true and accurate record of all mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers employed thereon, showing the name, address and occupational classification of each such employee on said works, and the hours worked by, and the wages paid to, each such employee, and shall submit weekly to the awarding authority by mail, first class postage prepaid, or by electronic mail, certified payroll records that shall consist of a complete copy of those records ... . . . The above-mentioned copies of payroll records and statements of compliance shall be available for inspection by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority for such inspection and copying. G. L. c. 149, § 27B. The statute provides that copies of certified payroll records must be available for inspection and copying by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority. Id. The statute does not limit disclosure, but rather evidences a legislative intent to make these records available for inspection. Where the language of the statute does not restrict disclosure, the statutory right of citizens to inspect under the Public Records Law prevails. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn et al., 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979) (statute providing that records be available to town officials does not exempt records since statute does not limit disclosure to the public); see also G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) (exempting those records which are specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute). G. L. c. 149, § 27B evidences a legislative intent to make that information which is required to be provided by a contractor to the awarding authority open to public inspection. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Courtney with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Courtney 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: Patrick M. Courtney Odanis Hernandez