Sarah B. Perez v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253568)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 10, 2025 SPR25/3568 Timothy P. Houten, Esq. City Attorney City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Attorney Houten: On December 3, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Lawrence (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Sarah Perez. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 22, 2025, Ms. Perez requested approximately 25 categories of records, including contracts, invoices, communications, and complaints related to the Creating a Thriving Lawrence Program from its inception to current date. It is my understanding that the City assigned tracking number 2025-FOIA-1512 to this request. Please note that in an email to the City and this Office on December 9, 2025, Ms. Perez objected to the City’s petition. 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

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3568 Page 2 December 10, 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 City requests “an extension of time, not to exceed 30 business days, from the date of the grant of the extension, to furnish the records responsive to this request[,]” and provides the following information in support of its request: As grounds for allowance of the enlargement of time to respond, the City states that it has been inundated with requests since January 1st, and this particular request encompasses a potentially large volume of records, which will require significant time to research, identify, retrieve, collect, and produce. After those records are found, the City staff would need to examine, segregate and redact the records before disclosing them. Although the City employees work 35 hours each week to complete their regular duties, there is no dedicated staff assigned to review and redact records responsive to FOIA requests. As such, the records sought by the present request would need to be segregated and redacted during normal business hours in addition to completion of regular duties. The City is unaware of any public interest which will be served by expeditious disclosure. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the City has offered to work with the requestor to narrow the scope of the request in efforts to agree to a reasonable description of the precise records sought in order to provide the records in a more affordable and timely manner. The City has also asked the requestor to voluntarily agree to an extension beyond the statutory deadline. For the foregoing, good cause reasons, the City respectfully requests allowance its petition for an extension of time. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3568 Page 3 December 10, 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 $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3568 Page 4 December 10, 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, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction under the attorney- client privilege, the City argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (d), (o), and (p) of the Public Records Law: Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the records sought by this request, as presently constituted are subject to: G. L. c 4, §7(26), exemption (d) the deliberative process exemption involving inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters on legal and policy matters: exemption exemptions (o) and (p) regarding withholding the name home address, personal email and telephone number of government employees and their family members. In addition, all confidential communications with and the City Attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. Suffolk Contr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 (2007). In a letter to Ms. Perez and this Office on December 9, 2025, the City provided the following additional information: This is a request regarding the thriving Lawrence grant. It requests policy on who would get these grants, the names addresses and phone numbers of the recipients of the grants ,who may or may not be government employees. Memos from legal counsel as well as other documents that might fall under the listed exemptions. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City 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 City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Further, please be advised, records custodians may assess fees for time spent segregating or redacting records where such segregation or redaction is required by law. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(d) (stating that fee for segregation or redaction is permissible when approved by Supervisor or when required by law (emphasis added)). Where the City seeks to assess fees for segregation and redaction pursuant to attorney-client privilege, which is required by law, I find it unnecessary to opine on the portion of the City’s petition seeking to assess fees for segregating and redacting the records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3568 Page 5 December 10, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City 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 City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Ms. Perez may appeal the City’s fee estimate within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Perez 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: Sarah Perez