Nicholas Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253111)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 7, 2025 SPR25/3111 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Nicholas Laudani appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 11, 2025, Mr. Laudani requested: 1. Any and all emails, including attachments, sent or received between July 29, 2025 and August 2, 2025 by staff or commissioners of the Highland Park Architectural Conservation District Commission (HPACDC) and/or the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) that reference [identified two email addresses]. 2. This request includes, but is not limited to: [a.] Incoming emails from me. [b.] Internal forwarding of my July 30, 2025 email titled “Agenda Request for HPACDC Non-Design Review Meeting – 7-30 Public Review of Motion to Nullify & OML Complaint.” [c.] Any responses, whether internal or external, regarding the above email. On August 11, 2025, the City indicated that it received Mr. Laudani’s request and intended to respond and assigned reference number R004135-081125 to this request. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3111, was opened as a result. Subsequently, I learned that the City provided Mr. Laudani with a response dated August 25, 2025, which this office received on October 24, 2025. Mr. Laudani appealed the August 25, 2025 response on October 24, 2025 and October 27, 2025. 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

Grace Jung SPR25/3111 Page 2 November 7, 2025 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 (two) 2 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 appeals In his appeals, Mr. Laudani asserts that the fee estimate is untimely and stated in his October 24, 2025 appeal, “[m]y original request was submitted on August 11, 2025, and the response from the City indicating a fee was provided much later, on August 25, 2025, which falls outside the timely response window. Therefore, the City is required by law to provide the requested records without charge. I request that the City of Boston be directed to immediately produce all responsive records as originally requested, with the fee waived.” In his October 27, 2025 appeal, Mr. Laudani essentially repeats that the fee estimate is untimely and requests a fee waiver. The City’s August 25th Response In its August 25, 2025 response the City provided a fee estimate of $381.25. In support of the fee estimate, the City stated, “[t]he City has conducted a search of its electronic databases to identify potentially responsive records. This search yielded 1,035 records.” The City further stated, The City estimates that staff can compile, redact, and segregate approximately one record per minute. At this rate, based on the number of potentially responsive records noted above, the City expects it will take 17.5 hours to compile, redact, and segregate these records. A records custodian must assess the

Grace Jung SPR25/3111 Page 3 November 7, 2025 lowest hourly rate of a person capable of performing the task when it issues a fee estimate. 950 CMR 332.07(2)(i). The lowest hourly rate for a person capable of reviewing the records responsive to your request is approximately $25 per hour. At a rate of $25 per hour, accounting for the first two hours without charge, the corresponding cost of fulfilling your request would be $381.25 based on calculation. In further support, the City asserted, “... the City must review all of the records before they can be released. First, the City must compile the responsive records by reviewing all records to determine which are responsive to your request and which are not. Second, the City must redact and segregate the records to ensure material protected by law is not released. In this request, the records contain communications between a City of Boston attorney and employee or a City of Boston employee conveying a City attorney’s legal opinion. Such records must be segregated and redacted for confidential information before they can be released.” The City cited attorney–client privilege in support of the redactions. Fees - Timeliness of response Upon review, Mr. Laudani admits that his request was made on August 11, 2025 and that the fee estimate was received on August 25, 2025 which is the tenth day and therefore the fee estimate is timely. 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. In light of the City’s August 25th response, I find the City has met its burden to explain that it would take this amount of time to produce the records responsive to this request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). I encourage Mr. Laudani and the City to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Laudani may wish to narrow his request or include additional factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Grace Jung SPR25/3111 Page 4 November 7, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Laudani