Laura Schneider v. Human Resources Division (SPR 20252628)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2628 Michele M. Heffernan, Esq. Primary Records Access Officer Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Heffernan: On September 5, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (Division) 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 Division furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Laura Schneider. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 27, 2025, Ms. Schneider requested “[a]ll job posting waivers requested by EOTSS from 2016-2024, inclusive. . .” Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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 determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. 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

Michele M. Heffernan, Esq. SPR25/2628 Page 2 September 11, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Current Petition In its petition, the Division seeks permission to “[c]harge for employee time spent to segregate and redact records for reasons beyond those strictly required by law.” In support of its request, the Division provides the following information: [A] report can be generated that lists the requisition number, title, date created, date approved, and waiver type. This report can be provided to you at no cost. The work involved is considerable if you require the posting waivers as there are in excess of 100 waiver requests. [T]here are in excess of 100 waiver requests that will have to be separately downloaded, and redacted in accordance with subsection (c) personnel information. In an email dated September 10, 2025, the Division provided additional information concerning its petition stating, “[t]he requested records include employee identification numbers and evaluative information about state employees. For example, a request for a waiver includes a narrative about the need for a waiver, including assessments of employee skill sets, personal

Michele M. Heffernan, Esq. SPR25/2628 Page 3 September 11, 2025 attributes, performance history and workplace challenges related to the supervision of employees and their performance.” Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Division 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Division has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Division may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Division to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Schneider 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: Laura Schneider