Alexander J. Russo v. Sandisfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253515)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3515 Amanda Leavenworth Assistant Town Clerk Town of Sandisfield 66 Sandisfield Road Sandisfield, MA 01255 Dear Ms. Leavenworth: On November 26, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Sandisfield (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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, I understand that the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Alexander J. Russo. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 12, 2025, Mr. Russo submitted eight (8) requests for public records, in a total of 33 parts, concerning the Sandisfield Fire Department and related Town matters. In an email to this office on November 26, 2025, Mr. Russo objected to the Town’s petition. Petitions 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; 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

Amanda Leavenworth SPR25/3515 Page 2 December 5, 2025 (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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(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 information in support of its request: The Town has already performed a substantial amount of work on the initial response to the request which has required coordinating a preliminary search by seven (7) departments… [T]here remain nineteen (19) separate parts of the request which must be searched for, segregated, reviewed for responsiveness and redacted… The Town has already narrowed down the request as much as possible by directing the requester to information which is publicly available. Still, it is estimated it will take Town employees a combined 279.8 hours or approximately 35 full eight-hour work days to complete this request. It is simply not feasible for these employees to complete this request within the statutory limit while still performing their other crucial job tasks. The Town therefore requests that it be granted an additional thirty (30) business days (for a total of forty-five (45) business days) from the date of payment to respond. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, in conjunction with the capacity of the Town to produce the request without the extension and the efforts undertaken by the Town in fulfilling the current requests, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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

Amanda Leavenworth SPR25/3515 Page 3 December 5, 2025 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Amanda Leavenworth SPR25/3515 Page 4 December 5, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Town argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (b), (c), and (f): It is highly likely that the content of these documents implicates matters that are not subject to disclosure under numerous exemptions to the public records law, that are subject to the attorney/client and work product privileges and that contain highly sensitive information concerning personnel matters, bank account information and internal protocols, just to name a few. Sorting through all of these documents, which touch upon numerous topics, will require Town employees to undertake nuanced analysis in order to determine what is responsive, what must be redacted by law and what may be redacted to protect those interests encapsulated by exemptions to the Public Records Law. Therefore, given the enormous number of documents that will have to be segregated, reviewed and appropriately redacted, the Town respectfully requests to be permitted to include time spent segregating and redacting records subject to all privileges and exemptions… Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you have requested documents which may contain private and personally identifiable information subject to redaction under Exemptions (b) and (c) of the Public Records Law, including, but not limited to, bank account numbers, payment information, and personnel information. Disclosure of particular bank account numbers and similar information would potentially allow others to access the Town’s accounts and systems and potentially interfere with the proper performance of necessary governmental functions… It is anticipated that the Town has direct messages responsive to Parts 15 and 16… [T]he Town has determined that such records contain private public safety communication and investigatory information exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (c), (f) and is thus withholding these records… Exemption (c) Town residents regularly utilize direct messages to the Town of Sandisfield Fire Department Facebook to seek advice on public safety or report safety concerns with the understanding that these messages are private and confidential. These messages often include information and details explicitly protected by Exemption (c) such as: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputational matters. The individuals named in the responsive records therefore have a substantial interest in keeping their protected personal information private. Comparatively, the information which may be gleaned from these records is de minimis, such that the public’s interest in the release of this

Amanda Leavenworth SPR25/3515 Page 5 December 5, 2025 information, if any, does not outweigh the privacy interests of the named individuals… This is especially true in a Town of less than 1,000 people which greatly increases the chance that the public is familiar with the subjects and these reports often involve neighbors and fellow community members. Exemption (f) As described above, community members send direct messages to the Fire Department’s Facebook with the understanding that these messages are private and confidential. Making these communications public would have a chilling effect on people reaching out through this resource in the future because this valued confidentiality would be compromised. Consequently, it would detrimentally impact the Fire Department’s ability to conduct investigations and carry out its public safety duties. Therefore, after diligent review of this request and available records and based on the reasonable judgment of the Fire Chief, we have determined in our discretion that these direct messages must be withheld to protect the privacy interests of the subjects and the Fire Department’s ability to perform its public safety functions. 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. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Town states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour: In this matter, the requestor has specifically requested communications from Town Counsel, including, but not limited to bills and invoices, which Town Counsel must review for common law privileges, such as the attorney-client and/or investigatory privileges… In these circumstances, the response cannot be prudently completed without analysis of any applicable privileges and/or exemptions, and Town Counsel is the only employee with the necessary skill to determine whether the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges and exemptions apply. Without an adjustment in the statutory rate, the Town will incur significant financial cost where it is required to pay its attorney the full rate of $255.00/hour to respond to this request. The Town accordingly, respectfully requests that the statutory cap on fees for search, compilation, redaction, and reproduction time of Town Counsel be waived, and that the Town be authorized to assess fees for this work at its actual cost of $255.00/hour. This fee estimate is made in good faith, it reflects the Town’s actual cost for complying with the

Amanda Leavenworth SPR25/3515 Page 6 December 5, 2025 request, and is not designed to limit, deter, or otherwise prevent access to any non-exempt records. Based on its petition, I find the Town has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of certain responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). However, in light of the factors set forth in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), this allowance is limited to $75.00 per hour for the work of Town Counsel as described above. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, as described above, the Town may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. This office encourages Mr. Russo and the Town to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Town must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Mr. Russo 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: Alexander J. Russo