Eileen W. Mooney v. Great Barrington, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20253308)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 25, 2025 SPR25/3308 Josh Risen Town Clerk Town of Great Barrington 334 Main Street Great Barrington, MA 01230 Dear Mr. Risen: I have received the petition of Eileen W. Mooney, appealing the response of the Town of Great Barrington (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 21, 2025, and again on November 3, 2025, Ms. Mooney requested the following: [T]he following Public Records information from September 2025 police logs: Identification of animals in the 21 calls entered during September. Also, for bears and deer, where they were, including -- especially for bears -- whether location was on the porch of a house or elsewhere on the property and what was the result of the call to police. Was the animal captured? Killed? Did it leave of its own will? Information for each of the following [list of approximately 29 police report numbers.] The Town responded on November 3, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Mooney petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3308, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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

Josh Risen SPR25/3308 Page 2 November 25, 2025 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Mooney argues the following: This is a request that the Public Records Division tell the Great Barrington Police Department to provide the media with more information than it now does. Until about two months ago, the police had provided a log for reporters that included information about animals in town, such as what kind of animal -- a meandering dog, cow, bear or deer -- and where it was, as well as vehicular accidents, such as how many vehicles were involved in an accident or collision, where and why it happened and if anyone had been hurt; as well as disturbances; suspicious activity; and more. The department has stopped providing this log for reporters and now provides no information except the category and a street for animals,

Josh Risen SPR25/3308 Page 3 November 25, 2025 accidents/collisions and other incidents. Ms. Mooney is advised that the Office of the Supervisor of Records is statutorily empowered with the authority to determine the public record status of government records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10. Further, in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been alleged. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Please note that decisions on what to include in a police log are outside the jurisdiction of this office. See G. L. c. 41, § 98F (controlling contents of police logs). Given that such issues do not fall within the authority of this office, I am unable to address that aspect of Ms. Mooney’s appeal in this determination. In her appeal petition, Ms. Mooney also objects to the Town’s fee estimate, stating the following: Last week I requested information about animals and accidents/collisions. The public records access officer/town clerk . . . wrote that I’d have to pay and that the cost to locate and redact for one month of reports might be $287.50 with a five- cent charge for each copy. The Town’s November 3rd Fee Estimate In its November 3, 2025 response, the Town provides a total fee estimate of $287.50, and explains the following: [The Chief of Police] estimated it would take 20 to 30 minutes to research, print and redact each of the 28 police reports that you requested and as such he estimated that it would take 9 to 12 hours, so I sent you the estimate of 12 hours (with the first half hour being free). I picked the higher end of his estimate because he miscounted the number of police reports you asked for he counted 28 and I counted 29. In a separate email on November 3, 2025, the Town further explains the following: The fee structure for PRR is 25 dollars an hour with the first hour being free of charge. If this is going to take 11.5 hours for the PD to compile for you the cost will be $287.50 with a five cent charge for each copy. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the information provided in the Town’s fee estimate, it is unclear why the Town requires 20 to 30 minutes to review, redact and reproduce each report. The Town must provide further details regarding the contents of the records and why it would take this amount of time to review each one. The Town’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation that the rate of $25 per hour is that of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the tasks. Further, the Town’s fee estimate does not confirm whether the Town’s population is 20,000 people or less, as required to

Josh Risen SPR25/3308 Page 4 November 25, 2025 assess fees for the first two hours of work. Accordingly, the Town must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii)-(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). The Town is advised that information that is “required by law” to be segregated or redacted is found in statutes that explicitly indicate that certain records or information are not public records. Some common examples are the student record statute (G. L. c. 71, § 34D), the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act (G. L. c. 6, § 167), and laws regarding the confidentiality of domestic violence records (G. L. c. 41, § 97D; G. L. c. 41, § 98F; G. L. c. 209A, § 8). These statutes operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Segregation or redaction under the attorney-client privilege is also interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly, the Town must provide further explanation as to whether the redactions described in the fee estimate are required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Town must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $287.50 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Mooney and the Town to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Mooney may wish to narrow the scope of her request. The Town must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Mooney with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Mooney may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Josh Risen SPR25/3308 Page 5 November 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Eileen W. Mooney