Jonathan Mahoney v. Stoneham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253550)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 16, 2025 SPR25/3550 James P. O’Connor Chief of Police Stoneham Police Department 47 Central Street Stoneham, MA 02180 Dear Chief O’Connor I have received the petition of Jonathan Mahoney appealing the response of the Stoneham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 19, 2025, Mr. Mahoney requested: [1] All reports by the Stoneham Police Department, Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, and any party not mentioned regarding [two identified individuals] for an incident that occurred on or about November 22, 2023 – November 23, 2023. [2.] All audio and video surveillance collected by the Stoneham Police Department, Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, and any party not mentioned. [3.] All communications by the Stoneham Police Department, Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, and any party not mentioned regarding this matter (i.e. emails, phone calls and letters). [4.] All notes by Stoneham Police Department personnel as well as personnel from Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting. [5.] All witnesses’ statements to include written and audio/video recorded. [6.] Total cost of the investigation to include Stoneham Police Department overtime and costs billed by Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting. 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

James P. O’Connor SPR25/3550 Page 2 December 16, 2025 The Department responded on November 24, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mahoney petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3550, 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 ($.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). The Department’s November 24th Response In its November 24, 2025 response, the Department provided a fee estimate of $125.00 to produce the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department stated: As the Town is a municipality with a population in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) people, a fee will not be imposed for the first two (2) hours dedicated to your request. Based on the Town’s good faith estimate, a fee of one hundred and twenty‐five ($125.00) dollars will be required which is based on an estimated 7 total hours at $25.00 an hour to complete your request(s), adjusted for the first two (2) hours not being charged… Please note portions of the responsive records may be redacted and/or withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) and/or as required by law. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mahoney contested the fee and stated, “[t]his request involves a matter of public interest and will not be used for any commercial purpose.”

James P. O’Connor SPR25/3550 Page 3 December 16, 2025 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). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department states that it would take 7 hours to produce the responsive records, it is unclear why the Department requires this much time. The Department must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, if redactions are required, I find the Department must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. Please be advised, segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege is interpreted to be “required by law.” Further, the Department must clarify how many pages of responsive documents it possesses and how many minutes per page the Department requires to segregate or redact the records. The Department’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation that the rate of $25 per hour is the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s). Accordingly, the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the Department must also clarify whether its fee estimate includes time for segregation or redaction not required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $125.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d).

James P. O’Connor SPR25/3550 Page 4 December 16, 2025 This office encourages Mr. Mahoney and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Mahoney may wish to narrow his 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 Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mahoney 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. Mr. Mahoney may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Mahoney