MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Madeline Blanchette v. Springfield, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20252682)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 09-10-2025

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20252682 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Madeline Blanchette concerning records held by Springfield, City of - City Solicitor, opened 09-10-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20252682
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Madeline Blanchette
Custodian
Springfield, City of - City Solicitor
Date Opened
09-10-2025
Date Closed
09-17-2025

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 17, 2025 SPR25/2682 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Madeline Blanchette, Esq., of Foster Blanchette, and Harrell, on behalf of Ra-Born Allah, appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 28, 2025, Attorney Blanchette requested, “…all Springfield Police Department files regarding the March 4, 1994 murder of [an identified individual] that yielded indictments for [three identified individuals].” The City initially responded on August 11, 2025, assigning the request reference number 25-2559 and providing a fee estimate. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2478 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 4, 2025). In my September 4th determination, I closed SPR25/2478 in light of the City providing a supplemental response on September 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Blanchette petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2682, was opened as a result. 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 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2682 Page 2 September 17, 2025 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). The City’s September 4th Response In its September 4, 2025 response, the City referenced its August 11, 2025 fee estimate to provide the responsive records and stated, “[t]he requested records are for a 1984 murder, these records are complicated and lengthy to review and redact.” In addition, the City stated, “[t]he requester had previously submitted an identical request for the same records… a GFE was sent to the requester… The requester did not pay or otherwise respond[.]” In the referenced August 11, 2025 fee estimate, the City assessed a fee of $1,041.75 to provide the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the City stated: After deducting the first two hours per state law, the City's Good Faith Estimate to reproduce the records you have requested is $1041.75. This total is based upon the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee. The charges for the City's work on your request is described [as follows]… STAFF TITLE TIME RATE CHARGE Police Department staff 2.0 $25/hour $50.00 Law Department Attorney 41.67 $25/hour $1,041.75 43.67 $25/hour =$1,091.75 - 2 hours -$50.00 (2 hrs.) TOTAL NOW DUE: 41.67 =$1,041.75 The Springfield Police Department (SPD) has advised that the murder book that must be copied and scanned for review by the Law Department. The estimated time for the SPD response is 2 hours. Then the Law Department must review and, if necessary, redact the records before release. Given the nature of the files, considerable redaction will be needed. Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the City has the right to charge for the cost(s) of responding to public records requests. Note we are charging a flat hourly fee of $25/hour to respond to PRRs, not the actual hourly rate for our staff. The estimated time for the Law Department’s work for this request is 41.67 hours.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2682 Page 3 September 17, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Blanchette requested a fee waiver and stated: I did not pursue the April request simply because my client did not have the funds to pay that fee, and because I have never been asked to pay for any previous FOIA request… Please know that I never received any records from the City of Springfield… These records are critical to my client's case and, as I argued, in the public interest. My good faith intention and professional obligation is to obtain the records for my client, not to pester the City of Springfield… Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the City states that it would take 43.67 hours to produce and redact the responsive records, it is unclear why the City requires this much time. The City must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, if redactions are required, I find the City must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. Further, the City must clarify how many pages of responsive documents it possess and how many minutes per page it requires to segregate or redact the records. Based on the City’s response, it is also uncertain how the City can assess a fee for “review by the Law Department” under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). The City must clarify how this task constitutes time to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce records. Accordingly, the City must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable).

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2682 Page 4 September 17, 2025 Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the City must also clarify whether its fee estimate includes time for segregation or redaction not required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $1,041.75 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Attorney Blanchette and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Blanchette with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Madeline Blanchette, Esq.