John Ostransder v. Peabody, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253547)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3547 Captain Douglas Marcus Administrative Commander Peabody Police Department 6 Allens Way Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Captain Marcus: On December 2, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Peabody Police Department (Department) seeking permission to waive statutory limits to fees and to charge for time spent segregating or 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, John Ostransder. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 24, 2025, Mr. Ostransder requested the following records concerning an identified case: [1] All bodycam footage[;] [2] [A]ll dash camera footage filmed…[;] [3] [A]ll CCTV/surveillance footage…[.] 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 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

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/3547 Page 2 December 9, 2025 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 understanding 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). 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, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) and provides the following information in support of its request:

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/3547 Page 3 December 9, 2025 Exemption (C) [s]pecifically applying to “personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual.[”] These records include names, dates of birth, faces, medical information, and motor vehicle plates that will all need to be redacted. Disclosure may reveal private information, unwanted intrusions, and may increase the risk of theft or identity fraud. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge a fee of $54.17 per hour to segregate and redact responsive body camera footage: The requested records include 19 body worn camera videos totaling 213 minutes. The lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the segregation and redaction of these records is Sergeant Robert Faletra. This is due to the fact that the Body Worn Camera system has two administrators in the department including Sergeant Robert Faletra and Captain Douglas Marcus who are the sole employees responsible for the administrative work in the Body Worn Camera program. Furthermore, the administrative access that a Body Worn Camera administrator has limits the employees allowed to manage and view this sensitive information. These officers have specialized training and security clearances to manage, maintain, and secure the digital files associated with the department body cameras. For the department to allow an employee of lower rank/pay access would violate our department policy. Sergeant Faletra’ normal hourly rate is $54.17. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the 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). The Department may assess an hourly rate limited to $54.17 for the segregation and redaction of the responsive body worn camera footage. Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, the Department may assess a fee limited to $54.17 per hour for the segregation and redaction of the responsive body worn camera footage. Mr. Ostransder is advised that he may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Captain Douglas Marcus SPR25/3547 Page 4 December 9, 2025 Please note, Mr. Ostransder 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: John Ostransder