Jeffery Smith v. Hardwick, Town Of (SPR 20253540)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3540 Ryan Witkos Town Clerk Town of Hardwick 307 Main Street Gilbertville, MA 01031 Dear Mr. Witkos: On December 1, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Hardwick (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, it is my understanding that the Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jeffrey Smith. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 11, 2025, Mr. Smith requested “[t]he complete calendar, schedule, or appointment book (in any format, including electronic such as Outlook, Google Calendar, or physical logs) of the Town Administrator from June 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025. This includes all past appointments (with dates, times, locations, participants, subjects/topics, and any notes). This also includes all future/scheduled appointments already booked through December 31, 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 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

Ryan Witkos SPR25/3540 Page 2 December 5, 2025 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 Department requests an extension of 15 business days and argues the following in support of its request: By way of background, the Town has already responded to at least a dozen public records requests sent by this Requestor since the start of 2025 which consists of, but is not limited to asking for emails, text messages, telephone records of almost two dozen officials; requests for payroll, time sheets, attendance, and time-off records for every town employee (over one hundred.) The Town has carefully reviewed this request, and based on the Town’s initial good faith work, the Town anticipates that there are electronic records that must be located and that information contained in the responsive records will contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege as well as well as other potential confidential legal and personnel matters under Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law, for which the Town must review and undertake the requisite balancing analysis as pursuant to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the efforts undertaken by the Town in fulfilling prior requests, 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 15 business days.

Ryan Witkos SPR25/3540 Page 3 December 5, 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).

Ryan Witkos SPR25/3540 Page 4 December 5, 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 requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction at a rate of $55.44 per hour. The Town submitted its petition on December 1, 2025, more than ten business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact that the Town has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records or a waiver of statutory limits cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 15 business days. However, as described above, in light of the fact that the Town has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records or a waiver of statutory limits cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Please be advised, however, this determination does not preclude the Town from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law at a rate of $25.00 per hour. Mr. Smith is advised that he may appeal the Town’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. Smith 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: Jeffrey Smith