Kristine Barberi v. West Springfield, Town of (SPR 20253193)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 3, 2025 SPR25/3193 Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. Chief of Staff General Counsel Town of West Springfield 26 Central Street, Suite 32 West Springfield, MA 01089 Dear Attorney O’Brien Scott On October 29, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of West Springfield (Town) seeking relief from the obligation to produce 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, I understand that the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Kristine Barberi. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). As explained in the Town’s petition, “[b]etween May 14, 2025, and October 20, 2025, Ms. Kristine Barberi has submitted seventy-one (71) separate public records requests to the Town of West Springfield.” In an email to this office and the Town on November 4, 2025, Ms. Barberi objected to the Town’s petition. Petitions for an Extension of Time and for Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records 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; (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; 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 R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3193 Page 2 November 3, 2025 (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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). The Town’s Request for Relief In its petition, the Town seeks “relief from its obligation to respond to a series of contemporaneous public records requests.” In support of its request, the Town argues the following: Ms. Barberi’s volume, frequency, and pattern of requests demonstrate that they are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass the Town and its staff and are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. . . . The Town respectfully submits that Ms. Barberi’s requests meet this standard. Between May 14 and October 20, 2025, Ms. Barberi has submitted seventy-one separate public records requests, including ten on a single day. Many of these requests are duplicative or differ only trivially in scope, often addressing the same subject matter divided into multiple filings, which appears designed to circumvent aggregation or fee assessment. Despite the Town’s consistent good-faith responses and the provision of voluminous records on the same or similar topics, Ms. Barberi continues to submit repetitive and overlapping requests. Furthermore, nearly none of the information the Town has provided has been disseminated publicly or used for journalistic or informational purposes, suggesting that these requests are not intended for broad public benefit. Additionally, the Town notes that Ms. Barberi serves as the treasurer for a candidate running in opposition to the incumbent Mayor, indicating that her requests may be politically motivated and intended to burden or harass the current administration rather than to promote transparency or accountability.

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3193 Page 3 November 3, 2025 Based on the information provided in the Town’s petition, I find that the Town has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Dividing a Single Request In its petition, the Town also requests that this office “[a]uthorize the Town to aggregate Ms. Barberi’s requests for purposes of calculating and assessing the actual time spent searching for, segregating, and producing responsive records, as contemplated by 950 CMR 32.07(2).” The Town provides the following additional information: On October 16 alone, Ms. Barberi submitted ten separate requests (PRR-655 through PRR-664), nine of which concern substantially similar subject matter (the ESE Trust). This mirrors her earlier practice of fragmenting related requests to avoid aggregation or fee assessment, as seen in prior submissions PRR-530 through PRR-542 (relating to Police and Fire reports for a single property, the Bel Air Motel). Ms. Barberi has already been provided a significant amount of information related to the ESE Trust in response to records requests PRR-494 and PRR-633 The Town and Ms. Barberi are advised that this office has previously held that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. See e.g. SPR24/1815 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 26, 2024), SPR23/0535 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 4, 2023), and SPR22/1404 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 1, 2022). Given that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent fees, I find it unnecessary to opine on the Town’s request to aggregate Ms. Barberi’s requests for records. Conclusion As described above, I am unable to grant the Town’s request for relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. Please be aware, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Please note, Ms. Barberi 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).

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3193 Page 4 November 3, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kristine Barberi