Joseph D. Sherman v. Norwood, Town of (SPR 20253245)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 12, 2025 SPR25/3245 MaryLou Folan Town Clerk Town of Norwood 566 Washington Street, P. O. Box 40 Norwood, MA 02062-0040 Dear Ms. Folan: On November 4, 2025, this office received the petition of James Donnelly, Esq., of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, on behalf of the Town of Norwood (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, Joseph D. Sherman, of Tanowitz Law Office, P.C. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 21, 2025, Mr. Sherman requested the following records related to … Ridgewood Drive, Norwood MA 02060 from January 1, 2022 to the present: [1] All building permits obtained[;] [2] All applications for building permits and the required filings associated thereto[;] [3] All inspections and reports; [4] All communications, including emails, within your office and between your office and anyone else regarding this property; [5] All orders regarding construction or repair work; [6] All documents, including emails, regarding this property; [7] All other town records, including architectural/building plans for this property. 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

MaryLou Folan SPR25/3245 Page 2 November 12, 2025 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; (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.

MaryLou Folan SPR25/3245 Page 3 November 12, 2025 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 $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

MaryLou Folan SPR25/3245 Page 4 November 12, 2025 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 Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law: In this case, the Town estimates that it possesses 925 records which may be responsive to the request. These records will need reviewed before they can be provided to determine whether they are responsive to the request and whether any redactions are appropriate and justified by the Public Records Law, including any personal information, such as personal cell phone numbers or email addresses of members of the public, which is protected from disclosure by Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, or any attorney-client privileged information. Given that each record may consist of multiple pages, the Town estimates that it will take 30.8 hours (i.e. 2 minutes per record) to review all pages of records to determine if there are pages responsive to the request and segregate and potentially redact any personal information (i.e., personal cell phones numbers and email addresses) protected from disclosure by Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law contained within the records that have been identified in response to the request. 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, I find that to the extent that 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. Sherman 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).

MaryLou Folan SPR25/3245 Page 5 November 12, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph D. Sherman James Donnelly, Esq.