Nenad Jelisavcic v. Groton Police Department (SPR 20252932)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 10, 2025 SPR25/2932 Jessica White Senior Administrative Assistant Groton Police Department 99 Pleasant Street Groton, MA 01450 Dear Ms. White: On October 6, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Groton Police Department (Department) requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits to fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Nenad Jelisavcic. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 23, 2025, Mr. Jelisavcic requested “[a]ll police reports (and video recordings, if available – for police calls) that involve [me] for time period from 09/23/25 till 09/23/23 (two years back).” 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 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, § 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

Jessica White SPR25/2932 Page 2 October 10, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 Petition In its petition, the Department seeks permission to “charge the following fees associated with the search and segregation of the requested records.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In support of its request, the Department provides the following information: [T]he requested records include the following: the search, compiling, segregation, redaction and/or reproduction of over 20 audio recordings alongside over 50 reports/call logs as it pertains to Mr. Jelisavcic’s request. [W]ith respect to exemption (a), the Department intends to withhold the personal

Jessica White SPR25/2932 Page 3 October 10, 2025 information of the involved individuals to protect the safety of the residents of the Commonwealth. Most specifically, their Social Security Number(s), Driver’s License Number or State-Issued Identification Card Number, and any financial information in regards to the residents. The protection of this information outlined under the following Chapters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts General law: M.G.L. c. 93H, §1, M.G.L. c. 93H, §2 (c), and 940 C.M.R. 27.00. Please be advised, records custodians may assess fees for time spent segregating or redacting records where such segregation or redaction is required by law. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(d) (stating that fee for segregation or redaction is permissible when approved by Supervisor or when required by law). Where the Department only seeks to assess fees pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, which is required by law, I find it unnecessary to opine on whether the Department may assess fees for segregating and redacting the records. Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department proposes, “[t]he hourly rate for audio recordings from 9/23/23 to 6/30/24 be charged at Sergeant Davis’ hourly rate of $44.44 and audio recordings from 7/1/24 to 9/23/25 be charged at Communications Supervisor Stairs’ hourly rate of $74.23,” and provides the following information: [T]he search, segregation, and redaction of audio recordings, reports, and call logs by the Records Access Officer anticipates approximately 10 hours to complete their role in this request. This is anticipated due to the Records Access Officer having to pull over 50+ reports/call logs and read/redact each report alongside the listening and redaction of over 20+ audio recordings as they pertain to Exemption (a). [M]r. Jelisavcic is looking for audio recordings between 9/23/23 and 9/23/25. On July 1, 2024, our Dispatch Center regionalized with patriot Regional Emergency Communications Center (PRECC). Therefore, the audio recordings from 9/23/23 to 6/30/24 are only accessible to two employees of our Department: Sergeant Davis and Deputy Chief Bielecki. From 7/1/24 to 9/23/25, Communications Supervisor Stairs from PRECC is the only employee able to provide audio recordings after the regionalization of our Dispatch Center. [T]he search and compiling of audio recordings by Sergeant Davis and/or Deputy Chief Bielecki anticipate approximately 8 hours of work to compile all audio recordings involving Mr. Jelisavcic[.] This not only includes calls made by Mr. Jelisavcic but also his neighbors phone calls from the ongoing neighbor disputes and the times in which Mr. Jelisavcic called our Emergency Line. Therefore, there are several parties to search and compile audio recordings from to meet Mr. Jelisavcic’s request. It should also be noted, that Mr. Jelisavcic typically makes several phone calls per call for service.

Jessica White SPR25/2932 Page 4 October 10, 2025 [T]he search and compiling of audio recordings by Communications Supervisor Stairs’ also anticipates approximately 8 hours of work to compile all audio recordings involving Mr. Jelisavcic. The same scope applies to these audio recordings as they do above. There will be multiple phone calls to work through from Mr. Jelisavcic and the neighbors involved in the disputes. In an email to this Division on October 6, 2025 Mr. Jelisavcic requests a waiver of fees, arguing “[t]his is for [my] personal purpose, it is not for [my] company/business (not primarily in commercial interest. Disclosure is in public interest, since purpose of this is litigations against two neighbors, Conservation, Groton Police, and Town Manager. . . – shows email that Jessica didn’t attach to [you] and neither answered to [me] – it is very clear what Groton Police is doing (discrimination by hate).” Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted at this time. Conclusion In light of the above, it is unnecessary to opine on the Department’s petition for permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records required by law. However, I find that the Department has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Mr. Jelisavcic within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Mr. Jelisavcic 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nenad Jelisavcic