Sarah B. Perez v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253689)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 24, 2025 SPR25/3689 Timothy P. Houten, Esq. City Attorney City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Attorney Houten: I have received the petition of Sarah Perez appealing the response of the City of Lawrence (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). 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. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Perez petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3689, was opened as a result. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a December 3, 2025 petition from the City. See SPR25/3568 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2025). In my December 10th determination, I found the City had established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days and could assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemptions (d), (o), and (p) of the Public Records Law. 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 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. SPR25/3689 Page 2 December 24, 2025 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 City’s December 3rd Response In its December 3, 2025 response, the City assessed a fee of $455.00 to provide the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the City provided the following information: The current request is very time consuming. The request is very broad and far reaching... 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) [and] 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. …[T]he 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. . . . The City fully understands and agrees this petition does not include the first two hours spent segregating, redacting and reproducing records under the provisions of 950 CMR 32.07(m)(l). In addition, the City understands and agrees that “segregation time” does not include time expended to review records for accuracy and correct errors. The City provides the following good faith estimate for the actual cost to retrieve, segregate and redact the records. The City states that the actual cost of producing the records is… ($450.00) dollars, constituting twenty (20) hours at twenty-five ($25.00) dollars an hour, based upon all of the factors and set forth in this petition. The actual cost, not to exceed $450.00 would be used to pay the actual costs of producing all records sought by 2025-FOIA-I 512.

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3689 Page 3 December 24, 2025 For the foregoing, good cause reasons, the City respectfully requests allowance . . . to charge fees of $455.00, total for time spent segregating and redacting records to be produced in response to 2025-FOIA-l 512. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Perez argued, “[t]he City is fully aware that my requests seek information concerning the administration and use of public funds, and I am seeking these records in the public interest and for accountability to taxpayers.” 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 In this case, the City has confirmed that it is not assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time. Additionally, permission to assess a fee to segregate and redact exempt information under Exemptions (d), (o), and (p) of the Public Records Law has been approved by the Supervisor of Records in SPR25/3568. However, although the City states it will take 20 hours to produce the responsive records, it is unclear why the City requires this much time. The City must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law and under Exemptions (d), (o), and (p). Please be advised, segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege is interpreted to be “required by law.” Further, the City must clarify how many pages of responsive records it possesses and how many minutes per page the City requires to segregate or redact the records. The City’s response also lacks clarification that the rate of $25.00 per hour is equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s).

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3689 Page 4 December 24, 2025 Accordingly, the City must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $455.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Perez and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Perez may wish to narrow her 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 City is ordered to provide Ms. Perez 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. Ms. Perez may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sarah Perez