Patrick Courtney v. Westborough, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253074)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3074 Matthew Mehler Records Access Officer Westborough Public Schools 45 West Main Street Westborough, MA 01581 Dear Mr. Mehler: I have received the petition of Patrick Courtney, of Foundation for Fair Contracting of Massachusetts, appealing the response of the Westborough Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 5, 2025, Mr. Courtney requested “certified payroll records for all work performed on the Hastings ES ADA MAAB Upgrades Project. I would also like to request the prevailing wage rate sheet for this project.” The School provided numerous responses from September 9, 2025 through October 21, 2025, to include a fee estimate provided on September 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Mr. Courtney petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3074, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the School provided a further response to Mr. Courtney and this office on October 22, 2025. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian 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

Matthew Mehler SPR25/3074 Page 2 October 31, 2025 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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). The School’s Responses In its September 9, 2025 response, the School states that “it will be necessary for Westborough Public Schools to identify, redact, and verify over 168 separate payroll documents associated with the Hasting School renovation project.” In its September 23, 2025 response, the School provides a fee estimate indicating it intends to assess fees at a rate of $77.88 per hour for 5 hours. In its October 21, 2025 response, the School explains that “all personal addresses will be redacted in this public records request. However; the addresses of companies and vendors can be included.” In its October 22nd response, the School further explains the following: In response, and based upon legal guidance, I informed Mr. Courtney that Westborough Public Schools will comply with this request as long as personal

Matthew Mehler SPR25/3074 Page 3 October 31, 2025 cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, social security numbers and personal home addresses are redacted. Furthermore, I provided an estimate of approximately 5 hours to complete this redacted records request at a cost of $77.88 per hour, as it pertains to the Hastings Elementary School ADA MAAB Upgrades Project, the subject of the records request. In an email sent on October 21 to Mr. Courtney, I shared, “All personal addresses will be redacted in this public records request. However; the addresses of companies and vendors can be included.” It is my understanding that public employee home address information is subject to redaction by law, and that personal home addresses for non-employees constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. I indicated that we will share unredacted business addresses associated with vendors and companies associated with the Hastings Elementary School ADA MAAB Upgrades Project. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Courtney explains that he is “writing to file an appeal for denial of access as the Town of Westborough is going to redact the addresses from certified payroll records from a public project.” In correspondence included with his appeal, Mr. Courtney states that “I am happy to pay for the records I just wanted to make sure that names and addresses will be intact and not redacted as they are a part of the public record according to MGL Ch 149.” Based upon a review of Mr. Courtney’s appeal petition, I understand that he objects only to the redactions of names and addresses, and not to the other redactions described by the School, nor the fee estimate provided to him by the School. Certified Payroll Records The School is also advised that disclosure of certified payroll records is governed by G. L. c. 149, § 27B, which states in relevant part: Every contractor, subcontractor or public body engaged in said public works by an agency ... or municipality or any subdivision thereof to which sections twenty- seven and twenty-seven A apply shall keep a true and accurate record of all mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers employed thereon, showing the name, address and occupational classification of each such employee on said works, and the hours worked by, and the wages paid to, each such employee, and shall submit weekly to the awarding authority by mail, first class postage prepaid, or by electronic mail, certified payroll records that shall consist of a complete copy of those records ... . . .

Matthew Mehler SPR25/3074 Page 4 October 31, 2025 The above-mentioned copies of payroll records and statements of compliance shall be available for inspection by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority for such inspection and copying. G. L. c. 149, § 27B. The statute provides that copies of certified payroll records must be available for inspection and copying by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority. Id. The statute does not limit disclosure, but rather evidences a legislative intent to make these records available for inspection. Where the language of the statute does not restrict disclosure, the statutory right of citizens to inspect under the Public Records Law prevails. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn et al., 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979) (statute providing that records be available to town officials does not exempt records since statute does not limit disclosure to the public); see also G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) (exempting those records which are specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute). G. L. c. 149, § 27B evidences a legislative intent to make that information which is required to be provided by a contractor to the awarding authority open to public inspection. Further, in a 2002 Superior Court case, a construction company hired for a public construction project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) sought injunctive relief by asserting a privacy claim under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to prevent disclosure of the addresses and telephone numbers of the workers listed on the certified payroll records after the Supervisor of Records issued an order to the MWRA to disclose the records to the requesting party. See D’Amico, Inc., et. al. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No. 0284-CV-00369 (Nov. 6, 2002). In his April 29, 2002 finding, Judge Thomas Conley denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating, “[t]here is very little likelihood, if any, of the plaintiff prevailing in this matter, and there has been no showing of irreparable harm.” Id. In this case, given that the names and addresses of the individuals who are the subjects of the certified payroll records are public under G. L. c. 149, § 27B, the School may not withhold this information under Exemption (c) or any of the exemptions enumerated in the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Courtney with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Mr. Courtney may further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Matthew Mehler SPR25/3074 Page 5 October 31, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Courtney