John Sendelbach v. Shelburne Police Department (SPR 20252545)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 3, 2025 SPR25/2545 Gregory D. Bardwell Chief of Police Shelburne Police Department 623 Mohawk Trail Shelburne, MA 01370 Dear Chief Bardwell: On August 27, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Shelburne Police Department, (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. 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, John Sendelbach. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 25, 2025, Mr. Sendelbach requested nineteen (19) items from the Department including incident reports, police reports, narratives, supplements, logs, and documents pertaining to numerous investigations during an approximately two year period. On August 26, 2025, Mr. Sendelbach modified his request to seek the following: [1] Records involving [three identified individuals]. Any and all incident reports, police logs, and communications (emails, memos, notes) involving [three identified individuals] from January 1, 2020, to August 25, 2025[;] June 6, 2020, Shelburne Falls street closure protest and related allegations by [three identified individuals[;] March 2, 2023, harassment prevention order hearing (G.L. c.258E) initiated by [an identified individual], including [specified] testimony audio and related videos[;] May 2023 show-cause hearing (M.G.L. c.218, §35A) filed by [two identified individuals] for criminal harassment…[;] 2024 workspace incident involving [three identified individuals][;] [R]eports on or around: June 28, 2020; June 29, 2020; December 1, 2020; July 11, 2021 ; June 8, 2022; June 11 , 2022; any date in 2025. [2] Records involving [two identified individuals]. Incident reports, communications, and evidence logs for the May 2023 show-cause hearing[;] Communications between [five identified individuals] from January 1, 2020, to 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

Chief Gregory D. Bardwell SPR25/2545 Page 2 September 3, 2025 August 25, 2025[;] Complaints against [two identified individuals] from January 1, 2020, to August 25, 2025[.] [3] Department policies on handling harassment complaints (M.G.L. c.265, §43A), show-cause hearings (M.G.L. c.218, §35A), and public recording (M.G.L. c.272, §99) in effect from 2020 to 2025. [4] All police reports naming [an identified individual] as a subject or suspect: Any police reports, complaints, or allegations filed against [an identified individual] with the Shelburne Police Department from January 1, 2020, to August 25, 2025…[.] 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 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Department requests an extension of 30 business days and argues the following in support of its request:

Chief Gregory D. Bardwell SPR25/2545 Page 3 September 3, 2025 To complete this request in a timely and lawful manner, [the Department] may be forced to reassign officers from patrol duties or bring in additional personnel on overtime to ensure community safety while [the Department] dedicate significant hours to this records review process. The volume of responsive records, combined with the need for meticulous review for sensitive information, makes the statutory 10-day response period and even the 25 day period unfeasible. The extension will allow the department to: [c]onduct a lawful and comprehensive review of all requested materials; [r]edact exempt information to protect privacy, safety, and privileged communications; [m]aintain adequate patrol staffing to ensure public safety in both towns during this process. 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 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. 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; 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).

Chief Gregory D. Bardwell SPR25/2545 Page 4 September 3, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (d), (f) and (o) of the Public Records Law: Exemption (c) – Personnel and Medical Information[:] [m]any responsive records include medical details, mental health information, and personnel complaints about individuals not subject to disclosure. Under G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c), disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, requiring extensive review and redaction Exemption (d) – Deliberative Process and Privileged Communications[:] [s]ome requested materials include internal communications, legal strategy discussions, and attorney-client privileged exchanges. Review by legal counsel and careful redaction will be necessary to preserve these protections. Exemption (f) – Investigatory Materials[:] [r]ecords involving ongoing or prior criminal investigations, witness statements, police tactics, and law enforcement techniques are protected from disclosure if release could compromise public safety or investigative integrity. These records require line-by-line review to ensure lawful disclosure.

Chief Gregory D. Bardwell SPR25/2545 Page 5 September 3, 2025 Exemption (o) – Personnel Records and Identifying Information[:] [c]omplaints, evaluations, and disciplinary documents implicate personnel record restrictions under G.L. c.4, §7(26)(o), requiring additional legal and administrative review. The nature of this request makes a blanket release impossible; each responsive file requires careful segregation and redaction to comply with state law. 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). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. However, the Department is reminded that the current language of Exemption (c) prohibits its application to records related to law enforcement misconduct investigations. See G. L. c. 4, § (26)(c). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally as described above, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Please note, Mr. Sendelbach 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: John Sendelbach