Alberto Brito v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20252849)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 10, 2025 SPR25/2849 Paul J. Iversen City Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Alberto Brito appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 16, 2025, Mr. Brito requested the following: Time-frame: 1 Jan 2023 - present 1. Agreements & authorizations - Any memorandum of understanding, lease, license, or other agreement executed or draft--between the City/FPD and TJX Companies for office space at 550 Cochituate Road (a/k/a the MetroWest Drug Task Force office). 2. Correspondence - All email or written correspondence between any@framinghamma.gov address and any @tjx.com address containing the terms “task force,” “TJX,” “550 Cochituate,” “DEA,” or “ATF.” 3. Cost & resource use - Invoices, reimbursement requests, or ledger entries reflecting rent, utilities, or in-kind support provided by TJX or the City for that location. The City responded on September 29, 2025, and assigned reference number 2025-3076 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Brito petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2849, was opened as a result. In a further response on September 30, 2025, the City provided a fee estimate. In an email to this office and the City on the same day, Mr. Brito indicated that he objects to the fees. 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2849 Page 2 October 10, 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 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 September 30, 2025 email, Mr. Brito objects to the fees charged by the City, and argues that “a fee estimate must be provided within the same ten-business-day window as the

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2849 Page 3 October 10, 2025 initial response. The window closed at 4:00 p.m. on 30 Sept 2025. The RAO’s estimate arrived after business hours and, in any event, conflicts with its prior outright denial.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) Please be advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under subsection (b).” In this case, where Mr. Brito submitted his request on September 16, 2025, and the City provided a fee estimate on September 30, 2025, I find the City may assess a fee to produce responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The City’s September 30th Fee Estimate In its September 29, 2025 response, the City indicated it would withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (b), (c), and (n) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b), (c), (n). In its September 30, 2025 response, the City indicates that it will in fact provide responsive records, and provides a total cost estimate of $491.67. The City gives the following information in support of its fee estimate: The City must provide an amendment regarding the response to your request, consisting of an estimate of costs to you to produce the records, specifically those responsive to the second part of your request, “Correspondence.” An initial search brought back over 1,300 emails. A preliminary review of potentially responsive emails confirms that we will need to review and redact the records as required by law under exemption (a) at least through G.L. c. 6 § 167, § 172 (CORI) and G.L. c. 66, § 10B (public-safety personnel contact information) and potentially under additional applicable statutes. An exhaustive list of applicable statutes cannot be provided without reviewing each record, but G.L. c.41 §97D and §98F, M.G.L. c. 209A / c. 258E, G.L. c.272 §99, and G.L. c.276 §§100A, 100I are all statutes that require redaction by law and may be applicable to a like set of responsive records. In addition, information subject to the attorney- client privilege may need to be redacted. The City estimates that it will take one minute per email to redact these records. As a result, the City estimates that it will take 21.67 hours to redact the email portion alone. The City will not charge for the first two hours of employee time, at the rate of $25/hour (lower than the hourly wage of the lowest paid employee capable of performing such work). As a result, the estimated cost to you to produce these records is $491.67. In this case, the City has explained that it will not charge for the first two hours of work, has confirmed that it is charging at a rate lower than that of the lowest paid employee with the

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2849 Page 4 October 10, 2025 necessary skills, has confirmed that the segregation and redaction is required by law, and has explained the tasks involved. In light of the information provided in the City’s September 30th fee estimate, , I find the City has met its burden to explain how it has provided a reasonable fee estimate for the production of records responsive to this request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). This office encourages Mr. Brito and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Brito may wish to narrow his request. 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). Conclusion As set forth above, I find the City has met its burden in responding to the request at this time. Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alberto Brito