Marc Bernhardt v. Rowley, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253794)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 31, 2025 SPR25/3794 Ocean Kneeland Executive Assistant to the Chief of Police Rowley Police Department 477 Haverhill Street P. O. Box 365 Rowley, MA 01969 Dear Ms. Kneeland: On December 23, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Rowley Police Department (Department) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Marc Bernhardt. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 10, 2025, Mr. Bernhardt requested, [1] [S]earch under the following names, numbers, and emails: four identified individuals[;] three identified phone numbers and six identified email addresses. [2] [A]ll records, including but not limited to: [six subcategories of records] reflecting call made by [identified individuals][;] [c]alls made by third parties referencing [an identified individual], [an identified individual’s] residence, or [an identified individual’s] business[;] [a]ny walk-in visits by [an identified individual] to the Rowley Police Department[;] [a]ny internal routing of or [an identified individual’s] complaints or concerns[.] [3] [A]ll records reflecting: [a]ny drive-by patrol requests made by [identified individuals][;] [a]ny grants or denials of patrol requests[;] [a]ny internal patrol directives related to [an identified] residence[.] [4] [A]ll records reflecting complaints or communications concerning: [c]oncerns that dogs or animals may have died or been left unattended[;] [c]oncerns that Hydrant Regency was not being properly staffed[;] [r]equests that security footage / DVR be seized for evidence[;] [a]ny reports regarding unattended animals during extreme heat[.] 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

Ocean Kneeland SPR25/3794 Page 2 December 31, 2025 [5] Any records of DCF contacting the Rowley Police Department at [an identified individual’s] request[.] [6] Any referrals from DCF to Rowley PD[.] [7] Any communications referencing concerns about [an identified individual][.] [8] Any reports regarding the safety of minor children[.] [9] Any complaints made by [an identified individual][.] [10] Any complaints made against [an identified individual][.] [11] Any report that [an identified individual] was allegedly “driving by”[.] [12] Any communications involving [an identified] Detective or other officers[.] 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 understanding 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. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g).

Ocean Kneeland SPR25/3794 Page 3 December 31, 2025 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). 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department requests permission to charge fees at a rate of $110.00 per hour to produce responsive records for item one of the request and provides the following in support of its request: Specifically, in item #1, Identifiers for Records Search: Email Addresses - Extended, would include electronic methods. Although I am the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skills to complete the search and segregation of paper records or electronic records maintained in our records management system, I do not have access or the ability to search the electronic email server, which would be necessary in order to comply with this request. Because of this, I have contacted the agency’s IT company, PRS Group, Inc. located at … Bridge Road, Salisbury, MA 01952 and was advised by CEO [an identified individual] that they will charge a fee of $110 per hour to satisfy this request. For this reason, the Rowley Police Department is respectfully asking permission to charge the fee of $110.00 per hour to cover the time spent by the IT department necessary to comply with item #1 only of the records request filed by Marc Bernhardt. All other time devoted to compiling, segregating, redacting and reproducing a requested record will be charged at the state’s expressed rate of $25.00. The estimated time to satisfy the remainder of the request is 10 hours,

Ocean Kneeland SPR25/3794 Page 4 December 31, 2025 making the total good faith estimate, if the Supervisor should approve this request, to be $690.00. With its petition, the Department provides a letter from PRS Group, Inc, outlining the expected costs regarding the retrieval of specific emails. The Department is reminded that it cannot charge a requestor for the time it takes to search for responsive records based on the organization and management of its records. Public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a); see G. L. c. 66, § l2; see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). Therefore, the Department cannot pass along its costs for use of its third-party vendor services. As a result, I find that the Department has not met its burden to explain how given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion As described above, the Department has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. This office encourages Mr. Bernhardt and the Department to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Marc Bernhardt