Laura Kornacka v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253012)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/3012 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: On October 14, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Boston Police Department (Department) requesting 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Laura Kornacka. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 8, 2025, Ms. Kornacka requested “[a]ll correspondence by the Office of the Boston Police Commissioner, including but not limited to Commissioner Michael Cox, any administrative assistant to Commissioner Cox, and any person acting on behalf of Commissioner Cox with BPD’s [identified individual] between the dates of February 21, 2024 to April 30, 2024.” 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 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3012 Page 2 October 20, 2025 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, § 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 requests permission “to assess fees for time to segregate, and redact the requested records which include emails and attachments under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f) under the Public Records Law.” In support of its request, the Department provides the following information: [T]he Department has located 675 documents responsive to this request for a total of 2,194 pages.

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3012 Page 3 October 20, 2025 [U]nder Exemption (c), the Department will need to review and redact personal identifying information related to specific individuals in order to protect an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Department would need to redact witness names, dates of birth, places of employment, home addresses, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information. While the public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law- abiding and efficient manner, the public’s interest in obtaining the names of civilian witnesses and other identifying information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion or privacy. [U]nder Exemption (f), the Department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Kornacka 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: Laura Kornacka