George and Jen Burden v. Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (SPR 20253681)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 29, 2025 SPR25/3681 Anne Camaro Executive Director Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District 270 Barnum Road Devens, MA 01434 Dear Ms. Camaro: I have received the petition of George and Jennifer Burden appealing the response of the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 16, 2025, Mr. and Ms. Burden requested: [1] [A]ny and all records . . . regarding calls, communications, or interactions involving [two identified individuals] . . . between January 1, 2024 and September 15, 2025. This includes, but is not limited to: Call logs[,] Recordings[,] Emails[,] Letters[,] Text messages[,] Notes or internal memos[;] [2] [A]ll records of disciplinary actions involving [an identified individual]. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3038 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 30, 2025) and SPR25/3357 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 1, 2025). In my December 1st determination, I found that the District must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the assessed fees are consistent with the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the District responded on December 15, 2025, providing further explanation of its fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Mr. and Ms. Burden petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3681, 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 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

Anne Camaro SPR25/3681 Page 2 December 29, 2025 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 (two) 2 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). Current Appeal In their December 15, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. and Ms. Burden categorize the District’s response, in which it provides clarification regarding the assessed fees, as “[an] abusive fee structure[.]” The District’s December 15th Response In its previous response, the District provided a revised fee estimate of $2,400.00. The District stated that it would require a total of 96 hours to produce the responsive records and noted that it is assessing a fee for segregating the records pursuant to G. L. c. 6, § 167 and G. L. c. 66, §10B as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The District additionally clarified that it would not charge for the first two hours, and that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. In its December 15, 2025 response, the District provided a revised fee estimate of $2,500.00 and explained the following: In SPR 25/3357, the Supervisor of Records sought further explanation from the District regarding its fee estimate. Specifically, the Supervisor sought clarification regarding the number of responsive calls and/or radio transmissions and the District’s search and redaction time estimates. . . . The District provides further information to clarify its response below: (393 log entries*15 minutes of audio=5,895/60=98 hours *$25 per hour =$2,450.00)

Anne Camaro SPR25/3681 Page 3 December 29, 2025 Additionally, with respect to the District’s search and redaction of responsive emails, the District cannot identify how many responsive emails exist without first undertaking the entire search process. As explained in its previous response, to complete its search process, the District’s IT consultant must individually search the email inboxes of all 26 District employees for any correspondence pertaining to [identified individuals]. This process takes approximately 15 minutes per District employee, which totals 6.5 hours. Once responsive emails are identified, each email will need to be reviewed to determine whether any redactions are required by law, including any criminal offender record information exempt from disclosure by G.L. c. 6, § 167 and any information communicated with the District’s attorneys which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Given the above, the District initial charge of four hours to produce responsive emails was far too low; search time alone will take 6.5 hours, even without adding redaction time to the equation. However, the District will maintain its initial charge of four hours to produce the responsive emails. Accordingly, the District will maintain its fee of $2,500 ($2,400 for audio and $100 for emails). . . . Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office on December 16, 2025, a representative of the District stated, “[p]lease know . . . that the Burdens are parties to multiple lawsuits with the Town and/or Town officials, including an action recently brought by the Town and the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District. . . .” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Based on information provided in the District’s December 16, 2025 correspondence, this office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. and Mrs. Burden’s request, is active and ongoing in the Massachusetts Superior Court. See Town of Lunenburg, acting by and through its Select Board and its Chief of Police et al vs. Burden, George B. et al, Worcester County Superior Court Docket No. 2585CV01256. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this litigation could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Anne Camaro SPR25/3681 Page 4 December 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George and Jennifer Burden