Michael Campinell, Esq. v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253247)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 12, 2025 SPR25/3247 Jeanmarie Tarara Town Clerk Holbrook Town Hall 50 North Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Tarara: 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 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, Michael Campinell, Esq., of Beveridge & Diamond PC. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 21, 2025, Attorney Campinell requested the following: [1] Inter-Board Communications from Public Accounts and Public Devices [a] From January 1, 2023, correspondence between or among . . . [nine identified] individuals . . .[;] [b] That include any one or more of the below keywords: TLA- Holbrook[,] TLA[,] Barletta[,] Barlette[,] transfer station[,] solid waste[,] CSX[.] [2] Inter-Board Communications from Personal Accounts and Personal Devices . . . [C]ommunications sent and received using personal accounts and personal devices . . . responsive to the below request: [a] From January 1, 2023, correspondence relating to TLA-Holbrook or its project between or among . . . [nine identified] individuals . . .[.] 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 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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/3247 Page 2 November 12, 2025 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 additional 30 business days . . . to respond to the request” and provides the following information: Given the significant volume of responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the Town submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. Therefore, the Town hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. The Town will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. In light of the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, and the capacity of the Town to produce the request without the 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.

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/3247 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 $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/3247 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, the Town states that it “conservatively estimates that it possesses at least 1,960 emails responsive to the [r]equest.” In addition to segregation and redaction required by law under the attorney-client privilege, the Town explains the following in its request to assess a fee “at a rate of $25 per hour” for segregation and redaction: [T]he Town anticipates that the responsive records contain personal cell phone numbers and email addresses of members of the public and potentially Town employees and/or officials, exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (o) to the Public Records Law. Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. 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 segregation and redaction. 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 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, Attorney Campinell 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: Michael Campinell, Esq. James Donnelly, Esq.