Robert W. Anderson, Jr. v. Department of Correction (SPR 20253141)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 7, 2025 SPR25/3141 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Department of Correction 50 Maple Street, Suite 3 Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Robert Anderson appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 26, 2025, Mr. Anderson requested the following: [1] Copies of Itinerary/Schedule of Events for Volunteer Appreciation Functions at MCI Norfolk, MCI Shirley (Medium) and Old Colony Correctional Center; [2] Copies of any and all Special Activity Applications filed by any and all Programs, Groups or Self-Improvement Groups at Old Colony Correctional Center from January 2020 to May 2023; [3] Listing of all Staff segregated by Rank and Assigned Shift, which should include Administrative Staff, for Old Colony Correctional Center from January 2025 to present. (And, as was provided to me as a Public Record in 2023 and 2024.) To include pay scales; [4] Copy of 103 CMR 491.000: Inmate Grievance w/attached SOP; [5] Copy of 103 CMR 485.000: Volunteers and Volunteer Programs w/S!)P; [6] Copy of 2025 Religious Services Handbook; [7] Copy of Massachusetts Dept. of Correction Directory; and, [8] Copy of Department Policy/Regulation Assignments The Department responded on October 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Anderson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3141, was opened as a result. 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

Kate Silvia SPR25/3141 Page 2 November 7, 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 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 - Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Anderson requests that this office “require [the Department] to provide the Public Records in Request/Response 1 to him without charge (omitting Request 2 as it’s no longer needed).” He further seeks “that the Supervisor of Records also order [the Department] to provide him with the List of Staff sorted by Shift as [the Department] previously

Kate Silvia SPR25/3141 Page 3 November 7, 2025 did in 2023 for a Records Request.” With regard to Mr. Anderson’s objections regarding the Department’s withholding and redacting of the records, please be advised that where the Department has yet to produce the records described in its fee estimate, I find these matter cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Mr. Anderson may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). The Department’s October 9th Fee Estimate In its October 9, 2025 response, with regard to Items 1 and 2 of the request, the Department provides a total fee estimate of $50 and explains the following: In accordance with G.L. c. 66, § l0(b) and 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2), we have estimated that a charge of $50.00 is necessary to process this production. This amount includes an estimated 6 hours to search, segregate and redact the requested records at $25.00 per hour, less the first 4 hours. These records contain criminal offender record information (CORI). CORI is exempt from disclosure under the public records statue pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (a) as records that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted to disclosure by statute.” Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear why the Department requires six hours to search, segregate and redact the requested records. The Department must provide further details regarding the nature of the responsive records, and the tasks involved and what each task entails, including the time it is allocating to compiling, segregating, redacting and reproducing the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Anderson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Anderson may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kate Silvia SPR25/3141 Page 4 November 7, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Anderson