Jeffery Smith v. Hardwick, Town Of (SPR 20253820)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 13, 2026 SPR25/3820 Ryan Witkos Town Clerk Town of Hardwick 307 Main Street Gilbertville, MA 01031 Dear Mr. Witkos: I have received the petition of Jeffrey Smith appealing the response of the Town of Hardwick (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 11, 2025, Mr. Smith requested “[t]he complete calendar, schedule, or appointment book (in any format, including electronic such as Outlook, Google Calendar, or physical logs) of the Town Administrator from June 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025. This includes all past appointments (with dates, times, locations, participants, subjects/topics, and any notes). This also includes all future/scheduled appointments already booked through December 31, 2025.” Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the Town. See SPR25/3540 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 5, 2025). In my December 5th determination, I found that the Town had met its burden for an extension of time, but had not demonstrated that it submitted a timely petition to assess fees. I also noted that the determination did not preclude the Town from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law at a rate of $25.00 per hour. Subsequently, the Town provided a revised fee estimate to Mr. Smith on December 8, 2025. Objecting to the fees, Mr. Smith petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3820, 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 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

Ryan Witkos SPR25/3820 Page 2 January 13, 2026 ($.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). The Town’s Responses In its November 25, 2025 response, the Town provided a total fee estimate of $138.60. In its revised December 8, 2025 fee estimate, the Town provides a total fee estimate of $62.50, and indicates it will require 2.5 hours for “employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact records requested under public records request law, consult with Town Counsel, and co-ordinate with Information Technology department.” The Town further clarifies its fee estimate in its December 1, and December 9, 2025 responses. In its December 1st response, the Town also explained the following: The Town has carefully reviewed this request, and based on the Town’s initial good faith work, the Town anticipates that there are electronic records that must be located and that information contained in the responsive records will contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege as well as well as other potential confidential legal and personnel matters under Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law, for which the Town must review and undertake the requisite balancing analysis as pursuant to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). Without an adjustment in the statutory rate, the Town, which has limited resources and staffing, will incur significant financial cost if it is required to pay the Town Administrator the full rate of $55.44/hour to respond to this request. In its December 9th response, the Town further explains the following: The Town is allowed to charge for records from the first minute as our last decennial census of 2020 shows Hardwick’s population to be 2,667; which is under 20,000 as referenced in 950 C.M.R. 32.07(m)(2). The Town Administrator has 474 calendar entries that must be opened, viewed, examined, and closed;

Ryan Witkos SPR25/3820 Page 3 January 13, 2026 which is a requirement in order to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, before proceeding to the next calendar entry in order to determine whether or not the information is allowed to be segregated or redacted under the requirements of law. Using a conservative estimate of 20 seconds each, the estimated total amount of time (2.5 hours) is in line with the revised estimate (for dollar amount only). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate In its fee estimate, the Town has explained that it may charge fees for the first two hours of work, has explained that it will charge at an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the tasks, and has explained the amount of time required to review the responsive calendar entries. However, where the Town states that it will redact “information protected by the attorney-client privilege as well as well as other potential confidential legal and personnel matters under Exemption (c),” the Town must confirm that it is only charging for redactions required by law or under attorney-client privilege, as the Town may not assess a fee for redactions under Exemptions (c) in this matter. Under the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In this case, the Town’s petition to assess fees under Exemption (c) was not timely. As such, although the Town may assess a fee for redactions required by law as in Exemption (a) and under the attorney client privilege, it is uncertain whether the fees include time to redact records under Exemption (c). The Town must clarify this. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Town must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Smith with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Mr. Smith may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Ryan Witkos SPR25/3820 Page 4 January 13, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeffrey Smith