Katherine Feodoroff v. Worcester Regional Retirement System (SPR 20252747)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 23, 2025 SPR25/2747 Rachel Grimaldi Executive Director Worcester Regional Retirement System 23 Midstate Drive, Suite 106 Auburn, MA 01501 Dear Ms. Grimaldi: On September 17, 2025, this office received the petition of James Donnelly, Esq., of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP on behalf of the Worcester Regional Retirement System (System), seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or 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 System furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Katherine Feodoroff, Esq., of Mead, Talerman, & Costa, LLC. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 3, 2025, Attorney Feodoroff requested: [1] All Complaint by Massachusetts municipal and regional fire chiefs, firefighters, or other fire department personnel (including their attorneys or other representatives on each of their behalf) concerning, relating to, and/or referencing [an identified individual’s]: Denial of creditable Call Time[;]Violation of Massachusetts General Law or Retirement Board policy related to Call Time buy back or distributions; and/or Procedural irregularities related to Call Time buy-back procedures[.] [2] All communications (including without limitation emails, text messages, social media posts, chats, letters, memos, and reports) by and between any Retirement Board personnel concerning, relating to, and/or referencing any Complaint identified in Request No. 1 or other complaints that led to the termination of [an identified individual][;] [3] All documentation or files related to or referencing [an identified individual’s] Call Time buy-back and all related documentation evidencing his remaining time until retirement[;] [4] All meeting minutes from Board of Director and/or other advisory council meetings 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

Rachel Grimaldi SPR25/2747 Page 2 September 23, 2025 occurring on the [11 identified] dates, including those in which the Board of Directors did not properly enter into executive session and, therefore, remain public record per G.L. c. 30A, s. 22(f)[;] [5] All documentation or files related to or referencing legal action taken against the Board by [seven identified individuals][.] The System is advised that this office has previously held that it is considered an agency for the purposes of the Public Records Law. See SPR23/1869 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 18, 2023); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). ----- 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 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 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

Rachel Grimaldi SPR25/2747 Page 3 September 23, 2025 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 System requests to charge fees for segregation and redaction of the records responsive to items 3 and 5, and argues the following in support of its request: The WRRS anticipates that the requested records contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law, including social security numbers, email addresses, cell phone numbers, and other private personal information of the identified retirement system members. In light of the System’s petition, I find the System has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the System may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the System has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction. I encourage Attorney Feodoroff and the System to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Attorney Feodoroff is advised that she may appeal the System’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Attorney Feodoroff 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).

Rachel Grimaldi SPR25/2747 Page 4 September 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katherine Feodoroff, Esq.