Ryan Curley v. Eastham, Town of (SPR 20252946)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 15, 2025 SPR25/2946 Linda Sassi, CMC Town Clerk Town of Eastham 2500 State Highway Eastham, MA 02642 Dear Ms. Sassi: On October 7, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Eastham (Town) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. On October 14, 2025, this office received the petition of Teena Tilton on behalf of the Town of Eastham requesting an extension of time to produce 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 Town furnished a copy of the petitions to the requestor, Ryan Curley. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 30, 2025, Mr. Curley requested “the digital copies of contracts with providers of goods and service in excess of $100,000 from FY23, FY24 & FY25 for the Town of Eastham” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and 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

Linda Sassi SPR25/2946 Page 2 October 15, 2025 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its October 14th petition, the Town requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following in support of its request: The request, submitted by Ryan Curley on October 7, 2025, seeks extensive financial documentation and correspondence spanning multiple fiscal years. Due to the volume and complexity of the request, it will require a substantial amount of time to locate, review, and prepare the responsive records. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records and the capacity of the Town to produce the requests without the extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Aees – 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, §

Linda Sassi SPR25/2946 Page 3 October 15, 2025 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 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). Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Town requests permission to charge a fee of $61.22 per hour, and provides the following in support of its request: …after doing some research, [The Town] ha[s] determined that this request would need to be handled by our Town Accountant, whose rate is $61.22 for a minimum of 6 hours. Subsequent to the opening of this petition, in an email to Mr. Curley and this office on October 14, 2025, the Town provided the following additional information:

Linda Sassi SPR25/2946 Page 4 October 15, 2025 The request, submitted by Ryan Curley on October 7, 2025, seeks extensive financial documentation and correspondence spanning multiple fiscal years. Due to the volume and complexity of the request, it will require a substantial amount of time to locate, review, and prepare the responsive records. As the Town Accountant, my hourly rate is $61.22, which reflects the actual cost of my time in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 66, § 10(d). I respectfully request approval to charge this rate for the time necessary to fulfill the request. At this time there is no one else that can fulfill the request but [an identified individual]. In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town has not met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. However, I find the Town has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. However, please note that this determination does not preclude the Town from charging fees at a rate of $25.00 per hour. This office encourages Mr. Curley and the Town to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Curley 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: Ryan Curley Teena Tilton Rich Bienvenue