Michael Campinell, Esq. v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252927)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 9, 2025 SPR25/2927 Jeanmarie Tarara Town Clerk Town of Holbrook 50 North Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Tarara: On October 6, 2025, this office received the petition of James Donnelly, Esq., of Murphy Hesse Toomey Lehane LLP, on behalf of the Town of Holbrook (Town) 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 School furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Michael C. Campinell, Esq., of Beveridge & Diamond PC. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 22, 2025, Attorney Campinell requested: [1] Any and all correspondence, communications, and documents, including but not limited to, emails (including emails from private accounts to the extent they cover public business), notes, letters, agendas, meeting minutes, memoranda, text messages, social media posts, social media messages (e.g. Facebook messenger), drafts, summaries, or reports: [p]repared by, including the past and present members of Holbrook Select Board[;] Holbrook Conservation Commission[;] Holbrook Board of Health[;] any other town agencies (collectively, the “Boards”)[;] Town employees…[;] Exchanged, sent, transmitted, or received by and between or among past and current members of the Boards and past and present Employees, including but not limited to [37 identified individuals] or [e]xchanged, sent, transmitted or received by and between or among past and current members of the Boards or Employees and members of the public[;] [w]hich relate to one or more of the following topics: [11 identified topics][.] [2] The Town’s current public officials liability insurance policy (or equivalent policy). If no such policy is currently in effect, please provide the most recent Public Officials Liability insurance policy that provided coverage to the Town[;] 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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/2927 Page 2 October 9, 2025 [3] The Town’s current General Liability insurance policy. If no such policy is currently in effect, please provide the most recent general liability insurance policy that provided coverage to the Town. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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,

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/2927 Page 3 October 9, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction under attorney-client privilege, the City argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records Law: [T]he Town anticipates that the responsive records contain personal cell phone numbers and email addresses of members of the public and potentially Town employees and/or officials, exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (o) to the Public Records Law. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Town 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). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage Attorney Campinell and the Town to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Attorney Campinell 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).

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/2927 Page 4 October 9, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael C. Campinell, Esq. James Donnelly, Esq.