Andrew Carleen v. Quincy, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253628)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3628 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy Office of the City Clerk 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Andrew Carleen appealing the response of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 2, 2025, Mr. Carleen requested, “[a]ll emails, text messages, and other written communication electronic or otherwise received or sent by Quincy city officials pertaining to the receipt or review of the signatures submitted by Citizens for Fair Wages to add a question to the November city ballot related to the Mayor’s salary increase.” Following correspondence with the City, Mr. Carleen modified his request on October 9, 2025, to request the following: …all communications, including but not limited to emails, memos, text messages, and correspondence between the Office of the Mayor (including [an identified individual] and staff), the Office of the City Clerk (including [an identified individual] and staff), and any other city officials involved in the review of the Citizens for Fair Raises ballot initiative, regarding the receipt, review, certification, or processing of petition signatures submitted by Citizens for Fair Raises or any ballot initiative committee seeking to place a question related to the mayor’s salary on the November 2025 municipal ballot. To assist with your search, please include communications that contain any of the following terms or phrases: “Board of Registrars,” “signatures,” “ballot,” “salary,” “petition,” “citizens 4 fair raises,” “receipt,” “review.” Please limit the search to communications sent or received between July 1, 2025, and September 30, 2025, unless responsive materials outside this range are found to be directly relevant. 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/3628 Page 2 December 23, 2025 Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2999 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 21, 2025) and SPR25/3209 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 14, 2025). In my November 14th determination, I encouraged Mr. Carleen and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Carleen subsequently revised the search terms of his request, specifically seeking records for three identified individuals. The City responded on November 18, 2025, November 19, 2025 and December 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Carleen petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3628, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/3628 Page 3 December 23, 2025 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 City’s November 18th, November 19th, and December 3rd Responses In its November 18, 2025 response, the City provided a response from its IT department, which described its proposed search process and provided a fee estimate of $525.00 to produce the responsive records. In reply to the City, Mr. Carleen contested the IT department’s proposed search process and stated, “I am requesting only emails sent between or among [three identified individuals]… For avoidance of doubt, I am requesting only emails in which the sender is one of these three individuals and at least one of the other two is a direct recipient… Please revise the fee estimate accordingly.” In its November 19, 2025 response, the City provided a copy of the “IT department’s explanation for how they go about searches.” In addition, the City stated, “[b]e advised that we don’t have a huge department that could complete these searches, only one person…This is also the technology we are working with. If you would like to pay the fee and have him go through the search, please let me know...” On November 21, 2025, Mr. Carleen replied, “[y]es, please adjust the fee schedule accordingly to the amended search parameters.” In its December 3, 2025 response, the City provided a file containing the responsive records. The City also stated: In this file, you will find the emails that were found in accordance with the search parameters, as well as images to show that all search parameters were completed and that there was no emails found pertaining to those search parameters… There are no additional documents responsive to your request in any format… Please send a check to the City for the Fee amount when you get the chance in the amount of $525. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Carleen stated: I requested the city provide a revised fee estimate based on this narrowed scope… Instead of providing such an estimate, the city unilaterally conducted a search and issued a request for a check of $525, without supplying a revised estimate or

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/3628 Page 4 December 23, 2025 obtaining my approval to proceed… I respectfully request that the Supervisor order Quincy to withdraw the $525 invoice… 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). The City is reminded that a records access officer may delay provision of records until all fees related to such requests are paid in full by the person seeking access to the requested records in accordance with 950 C.M.R. 32.07. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2)(f). In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where all of the responsive records subject to the fee estimate appear to have already been provided to Mr. Carleen, I am unable to assist in this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, where the responsive records have already been provided to Mr. Carleen, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Carleen is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/3628 Page 5 December 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Carleen Robert S. Thompson, Esq.