Justin Wenig v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253186)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 4, 2025 SPR25/3186 Anne Mahoney Assistant Town Administrator Town of Holbrook 50 North Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Mahoney: On October 29, 2025, this office received the petition of James Donnelly, Esq., of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, on behalf of the Town of Holbrook (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Justin Wenig, of UseStarJump. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 15, 2025, Mr. Wenig requested: [1] A list or database of all Purchase Orders (alternatively a check register, expenditure report, vendor payment history) issued by the Town of Holbrook from Jan 1, 2022 to present date. This should include, if available: [p]urchase date[;] [v]endor name[;] [d]escription of goods/services purchased[;] [l]ine item quantity[;] [[l]ine item price/amount [2] [A] vendor list with corresponding codes…[.] Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; 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

Anne Mahoney SPR25/3186 Page 2 November 4, 2025 (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Town requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following in support of its request: The Town makes this request for additional time because the employee who will perform the search and recovery, review, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore, including public safety responsibilities. In light of the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. 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).

Anne Mahoney SPR25/3186 Page 3 November 4, 2025 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 redacting 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; 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction under attorney-client privilege, the Town argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (n), and (o) of the Public Records Law:

Anne Mahoney SPR25/3186 Page 4 November 4, 2025 The Town anticipates that the descriptions of purchases within the responsive purchase orders may contain attorney-client privileged information, cybersecurity product information relating to the cybersecurity of the Town protected by Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law, and other exempt information. The Town also anticipates that the purchase orders contain information protected from disclosure by Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records Law, including workers compensation and other employee reimbursements which constitute medical and personnel information, as well as any personal information (i.e., personal cell phones numbers, email addresses, and home addresses of employees). Each purchase order needs to be reviewed to determine whether there is any information that is exempt from disclosure contained within. In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally as described above, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Please note, Mr. Wenig 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: Justin Wenig James Donnelly, Esq.