Chetan Tiwari v. Plymouth County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20252877)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 14, 2025 SPR25/2877 Patrick C. Lee, Esq. General Counsel Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department 24 Long Pond Road Plymouth, MA 02360 Dear Attorney Lee: I have received the petition of Chetan Tiwari, of Tiwari Law, appealing the response of the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 12, 2025, Attorney Tiwari requested: 1) Payroll records for [eight identified individuals] from January 1, 2022 until present. 2) Please identify the following with respect to [twelve identified individuals] between January 1, 2022 until present: a. Current salary b. Dates of pay increases received; c. Reasons for pay increases received; d. Amount of pay increase (amount and percentage); e. Dates of bonuses received; f. Reasons for bonus; g. Amount of bonus received; h. Regrades received, including but not limited to regrades to Assistant Superintendent; i. Dates of regrades received; j. Reason for regrade; k. Amount of pay increase as a result of the regrade l. Pension contributions from January 1, 2022 until present. 3) Payroll records for all Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office employees who held the title, position or rank of Assistant Deputy Superintendent from January 1, 2022 until present. 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

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/2877 Page 2 October 14, 2025 4) Please identify the following with respect to all Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office employees who held the title, position or rank of Assistant Deputy Superintendent between January 1, 2022 until present: a. Current salary b. Dates of pay increases received; c. Reasons for pay increases received; d. Amount of pay increase (amount and percentage); e. Dates of bonuses received; f. Reasons for bonus; g. Amount of bonus received; h. Regrades received, including but not limited to regrades to Assistant Superintendent; i. Dates of regrades received; j. Reason for regrade; k. Amount of pay increase as a result of the regrade; l. Pension contributions from January 1, 2022 until present. 5) Documents created or in effect between January 1, 2022 until present pertaining to the calculation of Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office employee’s pension entitlements. 6) All documents and communications pertaining to Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department’s policies for issuing bonuses, raises (including step-raises) and regrades. 7) Job descriptions for all Assistant Deputy Superintendent positions. 8) All job descriptions for the positions that [seven identified individuals] held since January 1, 2022 until present. 9) All documents and communications related to, mentioning or resulting from investigations into [an identified individual’s] performance. 10) All documents and communications related to, mentioning or resulting from investigations into complaints made, between January 1, 2022 until present, by [an identified individual], including but not limited complaints of unfair pay practices. 11) All documents and communications related to, mentioning or resulting from investigations into complaints made against [an identified individual]. 12) All documents and communications pertaining to a June 2023 verbal counselling/training and re-training that was required due to an alleged PREA violation, including but not limited to any appeal or denial of that appeal. 13) All documents and communications pertaining to the termination of [an identified individual’s] dental service. 14) All documents and communications pertaining to [an identified individual’s] requests and subsequent denials of FMLA leave from January 1, 2022 until present. 15) All documents and communications pertaining to the change in policy or practice that required female staff to perform strip searches of men, including and not limited to all correspondence to and from [an identified individual][.]

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/2877 Page 3 October 14, 2025 16) Please identify all costs paid to attorneys who were or are not employees of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any of its state agencies, including, but not limited to, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office or department for legal counsel in the matter docketed in Plymouth County Superior Court as Civil Action No. 2283CV00740. 17) Please provide all receipts paid to any attorney that was not an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any of its state agencies including, but not limited to, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office or department for legal counsel in the matter docketed in Plymouth County Superior Court as Civil Action No. 2283CV00740[.] The Department responded on October 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Tiwari petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2877, was opened as a result. 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. 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 under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Department’s October 1st Response In its October 1, 2025, response, the Department assessed a fee of $2,100.00 to produce responsive records. Specifically, the Department stated: To gather the records you have requested, the [Department] estimates that human resources and payroll employees would have to spend 48 work hours, at an expense of $1,100 (44hrs x $25). In addition, the [Department] estimates that a chief executive assistant would have to spend 40 hours redacting personal information about the subjects required by law to remain confidential, at an

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/2877 Page 4 October 14, 2025 expense of $1000 (40hrs x $25). The [Department] has not assessed a cost for the first four hours of work, pursuant to the Public Records Law. There is no lower paid employee who can perform the work, and the actual cost to the taxpayers will be significantly higher than this estimate … Although the Department has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 84 total hours of employee time, the Department has not provided sufficient explanation of why this amount of employee time is necessary. The Department must provide additional information regarding the tasks necessary to produce the responsive records, as well as the number of pages the Department possesses which are responsive to the request. Additionally, it appears from the Department’s response that it plans to segregate and redact the responsive records. Under 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 pursuant to 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 Department must clarify under which statute it expects to redact the responsive records. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed in its October 1, 2025 estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Attorney Tiwari and the Department to communicate further in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency 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 Department is ordered to provide Attorney Tiwari with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Attorney Tiwari may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Patrick C. Lee, Esq. SPR25/2877 Page 5 October 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Chetan Tiwari