Kim Richards v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253790)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 30, 2025 SPR25/3790 Meredith I. Stivers, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Somerville – Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Stivers: On December 23, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Somerville (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or 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, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Kim Richards. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 1, 2025, Ms. Richards requested, “all public records related to communications, emails, drafts, meetings, lobbying interactions, and external correspondence between Somerville City Council members and any outside organizations (including DSA, CAIR, BDS, or foreign advocacy groups) regarding the recent boycott resolution against Israel.” Following correspondence from the City dated December 5, 2025, Ms. Richards narrowed her request in an email to the City on the same date. Specifically, she “[narrowed] [the] search to correspondence to include [‘]Palestine[.][’]” Further, in an email to this office on December 29, 2025, the City provided clarification regarding the amount of time it sought in its request for an extension to produce records. Petitions 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; 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

Meredith I. Stivers, Esq. SPR25/3790 Page 2 December 30, 2025 (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 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the City requests an extension of time to produce records and provides the following information in support of its request: It will be extremely time-consuming to locate the requested records. An IT search must be conducted involving use of search terms and combination of keywords that are reasonably likely to lead to responsive records. The results of a preliminary search have been voluminous, with tens of thousands of emails identified. . . . Currently, the City estimates that it will take 44.4 hours to redact and segregate the email records requested, as set forth in the attached estimate, which is incorporated herein by reference. This petition meets the statutory standards stated in G.L.c.66, §10(d)(iv) to be used by the Supervisor in ruling upon petitions such as this, given the volume of material that has been requested, the need for careful review before release of the records, and the potential for the contents of these records to require withholding or redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure under the public records law. The City has found the need to redact or withhold a variety of types of emails in similar search requests, including, but not limited to, the following: . . . Personally identifying information of private individuals, such as personal email addresses. (Exemption (c)).

Meredith I. Stivers, Esq. SPR25/3790 Page 3 December 30, 2025 Subsequently, in an email to this office on December 29, 2025, a representative for the City clarified that the City seeks “. . . the maximum allowable time extension of 30 days. . . .” 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. 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 determination 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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,

Meredith I. Stivers, Esq. SPR25/3790 Page 4 December 30, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees The City submitted its petition on December 23, 2025, more than ten business days after receipt of Ms. Richard’s narrowed request. In light of the fact that the City has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregation or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(d). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. However, in light of the fact that the City has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Please note, however, this does not preclude the City from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. Please note, Ms. Richards 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: Kim Richards