Catherine Wauczinski v. Easthampton, City of (SPR 20253095)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 5, 2025 SPR25/3095 Mary Ann Giza City Clerk City of Easthampton 50 Payson Avenue Easthampton, MA 01027 Dear Ms. Giza: I have received the petition of Catherine Wauczinski appealing the response of the City of Easthampton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 18, 2025, Ms. Wauczinski requested “all emails for the Mayor’s Executive Assistant, [an identified individual] from the date of hire to June 18, 2025” On July 10, 2025, Ms. Wauczinski narrowed her request, stating “[h]ow about we start with all emails from January 1st 2023 to present.” Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2145 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 28, 2025 and November 4, 2025). In my July 28th determination, I found that the City had established good cause for an extension of 30 business days, and that the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction of the responsive records. In my November 4th determination, I declined to reverse my findings in the July 28th letter. Concurrent with its petition, the City provided Ms. Wauczinski with a fee estimate on July 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, and objecting to the fees, Ms. Wauczinski petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3095, was opened as a result. 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, 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

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/3095 Page 2 November 5, 2025 § 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 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). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, among other things, Ms. Wauczinski contends that “there is nothing reasonable about a nearly $54,000 fee especially given that fee was assessed on only a portion of the records that were requested.” She further seeks “that the records request be granted with no redaction.” The City’s July 24th Fee Estimate In its July 24, 2025 response, the City provides a fee estimate totaling $53,951.88. The City provides the following information in support of its fee estimate:

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/3095 Page 3 November 5, 2025 As you are aware, Sekula works closely with the Mayor, elected officials, private citizens, and my office. As such, based on my personal knowledge and communication with Sekula, in order for the City to comply with your Request, it will be necessary to compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce at least 86,323 emails. It is my belief, based on my own correspondence with Sekula and knowledge of the work that she has performed during the Time Period, that many of these emails will require redaction required by law as well as other exemptions to the public records law. . . . Given the requirement that there be no charge for the first two hours of work, the estimate provided below does not include the first two hours the City has dedicated to answering your Request. . . . Given the status of the law, the hourly rate of the employee who has the necessary skill to search, compile, segregate, redact, and reproduce the requested record is $25.00 per hour. The City believes the foregoing represents a good faith estimate of the reasonable time necessary to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce a record based in the Request. Basis of Good Faith Estimate: 83,323 emails x 90 second/email = 7,769,090 seconds of review 7,769,090 seconds/email ÷ 60 seconds/minute = 129,484.50 minutes of review 129,484.50 minutes x 60 minutes/hour = 2,158.75 hours to comply with Request 2,158.75 hours x $25.00/hour = $53,951.88 fee to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce a record requested Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that:

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/3095 Page 4 November 5, 2025 [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Ms. Wauczinski and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Wauczinski may consider further narrowing the scope of her request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any further potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Please be advised the City previously received approval to charge for segregation and redaction, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information. See SPR25/2145 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 28, 2025 and November 4, 2025). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Wauczinski and the City communicate further as described above, Ms. Wauczinski may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Catherine Wauczinski Mark A. Tanner, Esq.