Laura Kornacka v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253234)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 12, 2025 SPR25/3234 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: On November 4, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Boston Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Laura Kornacka. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In seven separate requests on October 24, 2025, Ms. Kornacka requested: [1] All correspondence by the Office of the Boston Police Commissioner, including but not limited to [an identified individual], any administrative assistant to [an identified individual], and any person acting on behalf of [an identified individual] with ...@fbi.gov between the dates of August 15, 2022 to present. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003078-10242. [2] All correspondence by the Office of the Superintendent-in-Chief, including but not limited to [an identified individual], any administrative assistant to [an identified individual], and any person acting on behalf of [an identified individual] with ...@fbi.gov between the dates of January 29th, 2022 to August 15th, 2022. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003079-102425. [3] All correspondence by the Office of the Superintendent-in-Chief, including 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3234 Page 2 November 12, 2025 but not limited to [an identified individual], any administrative assistant to [an identified individual], and any person acting on behalf of Superintendent-in-Chief [an identified individual] with [an identified individual] between the dates of January 29th, 2022 to August 15th, 2022. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003076-102425. [4] All correspondence by the Office of the Superintendent-in-Chief, including but not limited to [an identified individual], any administrative assistant to [an identified individual], and any person acting on behalf of [an identified individual] that references [four identified search terms] between the dates of January 29th, 2022 to August 15th, 2022. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003075-102425. [5] All correspondence by the Office of the Superintendent-in-Chief, including but not limited to [an identified individual], any administrative assistant to [an identified individual], and any person acting on behalf of [an identified individual] that references [three identified search terms] between the dates of January 29th, 2022 to August 15th, 2022. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003074-102425. [6] All correspondence by the Office of the Boston Police Commissioner, including but not limited to [an identified individual], that references [three identified search terms] between the dates of August 15, 2022 to present. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003083-102425. [7] All correspondence by the Office of the Boston Police Commissioner, including but not limited to Commissioner Michael Cox, that references [four identified search terms] between the dates of August 15, 2022 to present. It is my understanding that the Department assigned this request reference number B003082-102425. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3234 Page 3 November 12, 2025 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). 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 these requests were 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3234 Page 4 November 12, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (c), (f) and (n): The Department is a law enforcement agency. It is the responsibility of the Department to prevent crimes, to examine crime data, to investigate crimes, and to allocate its resources in the interest of public safety. The Department’s business is public safety. The Department is committed to community policing to foster relationships, to build trust, and to improve the quality of life through the City of Boston. The Department is involved in emergency preparedness and in developing and implementing security and public safety measures. As a law enforcement agency, the majority of the Department’s records relate to highly sensitive matters. Many of the Department’s records contain privileged and exempt information such as intelligence and investigative data, security related information, personnel, and information related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of government necessary to withhold to ensure proper performance of the Department. These categories of information are exempt under G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (b), (c), (f), and (n) and are not subject to disclosure. This information must be segregated and redacted from the records. Portions of records responsive to your request may contain information that is exempt from disclosure. Until a review of the records is conducted it is not clear what if any exemptions may apply to permit or require redaction or withholding. The Department will likely need to redact information pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In addition to assessing fees for redaction under Exemption (a), the Department is requesting to assess fees for time to segregate, and redact the requested emails and attachments under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f). This redaction and segregation is necessary to prudently complete the request. G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A records custodian may withhold records concerning investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of public view by law enforcement officials where the disclosure of such materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that releasing the records is not in the public interest. See G.L. c.4, § 7(26) (f). Under Exemption (c), the Department will need to review and redact personal identifying information related to specific individuals in order to protect an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Department would need to redact witness names, dates of birth, places of employment, home addresses, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information. While the public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3234 Page 5 November 12, 2025 abiding and efficient manner, the public’s interest in obtaining the names of civilian witnesses and other identifying information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion or privacy. An essential part of the investigatory process includes a dialogue between police departments, individual citizens and potential witnesses. Exemption (f) contemplates that individual citizens should be encouraged to come forward and speak freely with police concerning matters under investigation, and the creation of initiative that police officers might be completely candid in recording their observation, hypotheses and interim conclusions. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 354 N.E.2d 872 (1976). . . . Identifying citizens who participate in the investigatory process will have a chilling effect on future law enforcement efforts. To protect the confidentiality of individuals and to prevent a chilling effect of future law enforcement efforts, the Department would need to redact the names of civilian witnesses because disclosure of this information would prejudice future law enforcement efforts; therefore, disclosure of the requested record is not in the public interest. The Department has located emails and attachments responsive to these requests. There are 1,725 documents totaling 18,095 pages with a breakdown provided below... Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage Ms. Kornacka and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Ms. Kornacka 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).

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/3234 Page 6 November 12, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Kornacka