George and Jen Burden v. Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (SPR 20253357)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 1, 2025 SPR25/3357 Anne Camaro Executive Director Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District 270 Barnum Road Devens, MA 01434 Dear Ms. Camaro: I have received the petition of George and Jennifer Burden appealing the response of the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 16, 2025, Mr. and Ms. Burden requested: [1] [A]ny and all records . . . regarding calls, communications, or interactions involving [two identified individuals] . . . between January 1, 2024 and September 15, 2025. This includes, but is not limited to: Call logs[,] Recordings[,] Emails[,] Letters[,] Text messages[,] Notes or internal memos[;] [2] [A]ll records of disciplinary actions involving [an identified individual]. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3038 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 30, 2025). In my October 30th determination, I ordered the District to either revise its fee estimate to Item 1 of the request, or to provide further explanation of how the fees are consistent with the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the District responded on November 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. and Ms. Burden appealed, and this case was opened as a result. 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 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

Anne Camaro SPR25/3357 Page 2 December 1, 2025 ($.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 (two) 2 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 their November 14, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. and Ms. Burden object to the District’s revised fee estimate to Item 1 of their request and state, “[w]e . . . feel due to the delayed response we should not be charged.” They additionally object to the District’s indication in its fee estimate that it does not possess any records responsive to “letters, text messages, notes, or internal memos involving [two identified individuals] and contend, “[t]his statements is completely false as we are aware of” responsive record(s). Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k).

Anne Camaro SPR25/3357 Page 3 December 1, 2025 The District’s November 13th Response In its previous response, the District provided a total fee estimate of $2,550.00 and indicated that it would require a total of 102 hours of work to produce the responsive records. The District explained that it “identified 393 log entries/recordings” and that it calculated the fee based on the average 15-minutes “per call” the District required to “[locate] the log entry, [search] the recording system, [review] the audio, [redact] any personally identifiable information, and [save] the redacted audio” for a total of 98 hours [o]f work and estimated cost of $2,450.00. The District further noted that it required, “4 hours to compile the associated call logs and emails” at an estimated cost of $100.00. In its November 13, 2025 response, the District provided a revised fee estimate of $2,400.00. The District stated that it would require a total of 96 hours to produce the responsive records and noted that it is assessing a fee for segregating the records pursuant to G. L. c. 6, § 167 and G. L. c. 66, §10B as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Further, the District clarified that it would not charge for the first two hours, and that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. The District additionally provided the following in support of its fee estimate: As it stands, the District can identify 393 log entries in its records management system which . . . may be responsive to the Request. Each log entry consists of an unknown number of calls or radio transmissions associated with said log entry. Each call and/or radio transmission is also of unknown length. To determine the exact number of responsive calls and/or radio transmissions, the [District] . . . must complete its search process for responsive calls and/or radio transmissions as follows: Pull up each individual log entry in the records management system and locate the date and time of the interaction with [two identified individual]- 3 minutes per log entry[.] Plug the date and time of the interaction into the audio recorder software. Listen to phone call audio recorded before and after the log entry time to identify if it’s the correct phone call recording for that log entry. Mark the pertinent audio files with the log entry number. - 5 minutes per log entry[.] Look for any corresponding radio transmissions around the time of the call. Listen to radio transmission audio recorded before and after the log entry time to identify if it’s the correct radio transmissions for that log entry. Mark the pertinent audio files with the log entry/incident number. - 5 minutes per log entry[.] Additionally, once the responsive calls and/or radio transmissions have been identified, the District must review every second of recorded audio to determine whether they contain information required by law to be segregated or redacted. . .

Anne Camaro SPR25/3357 Page 4 December 1, 2025 . The District has to listen each second of audio, identify what needs to be redacted, mark up the recording, download it, rename the downloaded file, and save it. The total amount of recorded audio associated with each log entry can and often does exceed 30 minutes. Nevertheless, the District estimates an average of 10 minutes of redaction time per log entry. In total then, the District estimates a combined total of 23 minutes of search time (13 minutes) plus redaction time (10 minutes) per log entry. Based on the above, the District’s initial estimate of 15 minutes per log entry for combined search and redaction time is more than reasonable . . . . The District will maintain its very conservative estimate of 15 minutes per log entry which it initially assessed in its first response to the Burdens. Moreover, the District initially estimated that it would take 4 hours to compile any responsive call logs and/or emails. To complete its search process, the District’s IT consultant must individually search the email inboxes of all 26 District employees for any correspondence pertaining to [two identified individuals]. This process takes approximately 15 minutes per District employee, which totals 6.5 hours. Once responsive emails are identified, the District will need to review each responsive email to determine whether any redactions are required by law, including any criminal offender record information exempt from disclosure by G.L. c. 6, § 167 and any information communicated with the District’s attorneys which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Based on the above, the District’s initial estimate of 4 hours to compile the responsive call logs and/or emails is more than reasonable, and the District will maintain its estimate of 4 hours. The responsive records contain information required by law to be segregated or redacted pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Specifically, the responsive records . . . likely contain criminal offender record information exempt from disclosure pursuant to G.L. c. 6, § 167. Additionally, the calls may contain the home address or telephone number of victims of adjudicated crimes, which must be redacted pursuant to G.L. c. 66, §10B. Based on the District’s response, it remains unclear how the District requires the number of hours described above to produce the responsive records. Although the District states that it would take 10 minutes to segregate and redact each “responsive [call] and/or radio [transmission][,]” within the 393 identified log entries, it is unclear how many responsive calls and/or radio transmissions there are, and why the District requires this much time per responsive call and/or radio transmission for segregation and redaction. It is additionally uncertain why it would take 13 minutes of search time for each responsive log entry, and whether the “4 hours to compile any responsive call logs and/or emails” cited above has been factored into the District’s fee estimate. Additionally, the District has not clarified how many responsive emails there are and whether the District intends to use the cited time to segregate and/or redact the responsive

Anne Camaro SPR25/3357 Page 5 December 1, 2025 emails. The District must provide further details regarding the tasks involved in producing the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the District must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $2,400.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). With regard to Mr. and Ms. Burden’s objections to the District’s claims concerning the existence of certain responsive records, please be advised that where the District has yet to produce the records, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Mr. and Ms. Burden may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). This office encourages Mr. and Ms. Burden and the District to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. and Ms. Burden may wish to narrow their 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. and Ms. Burden with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George and Jennifer Burden