Andrew Rovan v. Stow, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20253756)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2026 SPR25/3756 Denise M. Dembkoski Town Administrator Town of Stow 380 Great Road Stow, MA 01775 Dear Ms. Dembkoski: I have received the petition of Andrew Rovan appealing the response of the Town of Stow (Town) to two (2) requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 23, 2025, Mr. Rovan requested the following: Request 1 [1] The full draft and approved unredacted minutes of the October 21, 2025 Conservation Commission meeting; [2] Any and all audio or video recording of that meeting; and [3] Any closed-captioning or transcript file generated automatically or manually for accessibility, including but not limited to .vtt, .srt, .txt, or .doc formats created by Zoom, Teams, or other software used to host the meeting; and [4] The attendance log and agenda for that meeting. [5] Any and all attachments, exhibits, or supporting documents referenced during open session. [6] Any and all internal staff memos or email correspondence prepared for or following that meeting concerning the agenda item “...Great Road – Discussion.” Request 2 [1] Any and all staff memos, reports, legal opinions, or correspondence prepared for or discussed during any executive session of the October 21, 2025 Conservation Commission meeting; [2] Any and all letters, memos, or emails between Town Counsel, Select Board, and the Conservation Commission or staff concerning that session; and [3] Any and all attachments or exhibits referenced therein. 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

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3756 Page 2 January 2, 2026 [4] Any and all executive session minutes of the Stow Conservation Commission for its October 21, 2025 meeting, including any notes, votes to enter executive session, number of members present, number of votes taken, the number voting in favor and opposed, the names of members voting each way, and any roll-call or notation of abstentions. Provide all required documentation of the stated purposed under M. G. L. c. 30A, §21(a). If such minutes are currently withheld on the basis that the related purposes still exists (e.g., pending litigation, collective bargaining, or similar exemption) please provide: [1] A written statement citing the specific clause of §21(a) relied upon, and [2] The date on which the Commission last reviewed the minutes for possible release, as required by law. Previous Appeal These requests were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3425 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 4, 2026). In my December 4th determination, I ordered the Town to revise its November 5, 2025 fee estimate or provide further explanation of how its fee estimate of $50.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Specifically, I ordered the Town to explain why 2 hours of search time is required to produce the responsive records and describe the task(s) involved in the search process. The Town responded on December 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Rovan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3756, was opened as a result. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3756 Page 3 January 2, 2026 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 Town’s November 5th and December 18th Responses In its November 5, 2025 response, the Town provided links to responsive records and stated: As to the First Request, as of the date of your request, meeting minutes of the October 21, 2025, Conservation Commission meeting have not yet been approved. I have attached the draft minutes… Because the Commission met via Zoom, it did not create an attendance log for the Meeting As to the Second Request referenced above, the Town does not have any responsive records, as the Commission did not hold any executive session on October 21, 2025. In addition, the Town assessed a fee of $50.00 to provide additional records responsive to Request 1. In support of its fee estimate the Town stated: It is estimated that it will cost $50.00 to search for and locate records responsive to Request 1... That amount is based on estimated employee search time of two (2) hours, times an hourly rate of $25.00 per hour. The employee search time quoted above is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of searching for the responsive records… The searches will be conducted in this instance by the Town’s Conservation Director… Please note that because the Town has a population less than 20,000 residents (approx. 7,200) as of the most recent Decennial U.S. Census, you will be charged for the first two hours of work associated with these requests. In its December 18, 2025 response, the Town stated: The Town provided a minimal estimate of 2 hours at $25/hour for the time to locate extensive documentation requested, including Conservation Commission meeting materials, and also, notably, “[6] Any and all internal staff memos or email correspondence prepared for or following that meeting concerning the agenda item “...Great Road – Discussion.” The bulk of responsive correspondence is expected to exist in electronic format (i.e., e-mail communications), requiring the Conservation Director to locate not only meeting materials but also any such e-mails and memorandums concerning the Great Road Discussion, conduct electronic searches based on keyword searches for the specific discussion at issue. The minimal estimate provided is the time to search for and locate a variety of records that are being sought given the Conservation Director’s superior knowledge of the Town’s records. Such minimal cost estimate is more than

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3756 Page 4 January 2, 2026 reasonable given the records requested and the work entailed to fulfill such request further. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rovan stated, “…the Town’s revised response does not cure the deficiencies identified in your determinations, including the lack of clarity as to whether responsive records exist, whether they were located or withheld, and how any proposed fees correspond to identified records.” 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 Based on the Town’s responses, the Town has sufficiently explained the amount of time it requires to search for and compile the responsive records and appears to not be charging a fee for segregation or redaction. Further, the Town has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 is equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks and has also confirmed it has a population less than 20,000 residents. Consequently, I find that the Town has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record) This office encourages Mr. Rovan and the Town to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Rovan 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.

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3756 Page 5 January 2, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Rovan 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Rovan