Jim Van Etten v. Department of Revenue - Child Support Services Division (SPR 20253836)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 13, 2026 SPR25/3836 Amy M. Clayman, Esq. Counsel to the Commissioner Record Access Officer Department of Revenue – Child Support Enforcement Division P. O. Box 9561 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Clayman: I have received the petition of Gregory Alvin James Van Etten appealing the response of the Department of Revenue – Child Support Enforcement Division (Department/DOR) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 21, 2025, Mr. Van Etten requested the following: All documents submitted by, created by, or related to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue - Child Support Enforcement Division (DOR/CSE) between 2005-2025, including: [1] Training manuals[;] [2] Caseworker and supervisor desk guides[;] [3] Enforcement manuals (IWOs, offsets, levies, liens, administrative enforcement)[;] [4] ACSES system documentation[;] [5] Internal procedural guides for establishment, modification, enforcement, locate, and UIFSA processes[;] [6] Contractor or vendor manuals[;] [7] All Massachusetts state-plan attachments and amendments filed with OCSE[;] [8] Federal audit, compliance, and performance review documentation[;] [9] Any documents that implement, interpret, or operationalize Massachusetts regulation 830 CMR 18.lSAl, including any federally required assurances or state-plan certifications associated with that regulation[.] This request includes any materials OCSE uses to evaluate whether Massachusetts is in compliance with federal Title IV-D requirements under 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

Amy M. Clayman, Esq. SPR25/3836 Page 2 January 13, 2026 42 U.S.C. §§ 654, 655, 666, and 45 C.F .R. § 303.100. The Department provided a response on December 5, 2025. On December 8, 2025, Mr. Van Etten modified his request to include the following: In accordance with G.L. c. 66, § 10 and your request that I provide a more specific description of the records sought, I hereby narrow and clarify my request as follows, while maintaining the core subject matter identified in my original request. [1] Child Support Enforcement Policies and Procedures [2] Establishment, Review, and Modification of Support Please provide all manuals, training materials, desk guides, or policy documents that address: • Establishment of child support orders; • Review and adjustment of child support orders; and • Modification of child support orders, including any criteria, workflows, or staff guidance. [3] Enforcement Manuals and Training Materials Please provide manuals, desk guides, or training materials that address: • Issuance, review, and enforcement of Income Withholding Orders (IWOs); • Wage garnishment procedures; • State and federal tax refund intercepts; • Liens, levies, and bank garnishments; • License suspension procedures (if applicable); and • Referrals for contempt or other judicial enforcement. [4] Interstate/ UIFSA Procedures Please provide manuals or training materials relating to: • Interstate (UIFSA) establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support orders; and • DOR’s procedures for initiating, accepting, and processing interstate child support cases. [5] Quality Assurance, Supervisory Review, and Case Closure Please provide: • Quality assurance or audit review materials; • Supervisor checklists or guidance relating to review of enforcement actions; • Manuals or training materials describing case closure criteria and procedures in child support cases. [6] Automated Enforcement System Documentation Your letter states that DOR “does not use an ACSES system” and therefore does not have ACSES user guides. I understand that DOR may use an automated child support enforcement system under a different name. Accordingly, please provide any user guides, manuals, training materials, or policy documents describing the automated case management and enforcement system actually used by DOR/Child Support Services, including how that system:

Amy M. Clayman, Esq. SPR25/3836 Page 3 January 13, 2026 • Generates, issues, or processes IWOs; • Initiates tax refund intercepts, liens, levies, or other automated enforcement actions; and • Implements any of the policies or procedures described in items 1-5 above. Production Schedule I am willing to proceed on a reasonable staged production schedule, beginning with the child support enforcement policies you indicated could be provided by December 16, 2025. I am also amenable to subsequent rolling productions for the remaining categories, so long as a good-faith timeline is provided. The Department responded on December 11, 2025 and December 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Van Etten petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3836, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on December 31, 2025. Fee Estimate – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first 4 hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66; § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Van Etten states, “[t]he fee assessment is unreasonable, inadequately justified, and inconsistent with the Massachusetts Public Records Law and its implementing regulations. The agency’s refusal to produce any additional records while the fee is disputed constitutes a constructive denial within the meaning of 950 C.M.R. 32.08.” In his December 31, 2025 appeal, Mr. Van Etten states, “I reiterate that my request seeks existing records maintained in electronic form. To the extent any responsive materials exist solely in paper format, I have no objection to their production on a rolling basis. However,

Amy M. Clayman, Esq. SPR25/3836 Page 4 January 13, 2026 electronic manuals, policies, training materials, and system documentation should be readily retrievable and capable of prompt electronic transmission.” Fee Waiver In his petition, Mr. Van Etten contends that he is entitled to a waiver of fees and states, “I respectfully request review and appropriate relief under the Public Records Law, including reduction or waiver of the assessed fee and an order directing timely production of responsive records.” 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). The Department’s December 11th, December 19th, and December 31st Responses In its December 11, 2025 response, the Department produced an attachment consisting of 55 “policies in effect for the period 2005 – present . . .” responsive to Item 1 of the modified request. In its December 19, 2025 response, the Department stated, “I write in follow-up to my letter dated December 11, 2025, which included records requested in Paragraph 1 (Child Support Enforcement Policies and Procedures) of your modified public records request dated December 8, 2025. I have reviewed the requests for the records listed in Paragraphs 2 - 6 of your modified request. Although the request was modified, it will still require significant time by multiple staff members to compile the materials from 2005 – present. The following is a good faith estimate of the time and associated fee (at a rate of $25 per hour) to produce each category of records:” Description Hours Amount Establishment, Review, and Modification of Support 6 hours $150 Enforcement Manuals and Training Materials 5 hours $125 Interstate/UIFSA Procedures 3 hours $75

Amy M. Clayman, Esq. SPR25/3836 Page 5 January 13, 2026 Quality Assurance, Supervisory Review, and Case Closure 15 hours $375 Automated Enforcement System Documentation 5 hours $125 Total: 34 $850 The Department explained, “[t]he agency cannot assess a fee for the first 4 hours of work. It took 2 hours to compile the Child Support Enforcement Policies and Procedures already provided to you. After deducting the remaining 2 hours for which DOR cannot assess a fee, the fee for producing the remaining records is $800 (32 hours x $25/hour).” In addition, the Department asserts, “[y]ou have requested an inordinate number of records in a vast array of categories for a 20 year period. The compilation of such records is not an easy task that can be quickly accomplished. It takes countless hours to search for and review the records and compile them in a format that can be easily transmitted. Compiling the records responsive to a request in the magnitude such as you have made is daunting and overly burdensome for the agency. ‘The public records law does not require public agencies simply to provide the requested records no matter the burden imposed, nor does it require public agencies to shunt aside their principal public functions to do so.’ Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024). The agency has attempted to work with you to propose a production schedule that allows the agency to meet your records request while continuing to serve the families of the Commonwealth. You have rejected the agency’s proposal.” Further, the Department advised, “[n]otwithstanding the above, DOR is proposing the below production schedule, which would enable the agency to compile the requested records while still carrying on the agency’s child support services obligations. If this schedule is acceptable, DOR will waive the fees associated with each category.” Proposed Production Schedule Category Production Date Enforcement Manuals and Training Materials (Par. 3) January 9, 2026 Establishment, Review, and Modification of Support (Par. 2) January 23, 2026 Interstate/UIFSA Procedures (Par. 4) February 6, 2026 Quality Assurance, Supervisory Review, and Case Closure (Par. 5) February 27, 2026 Automated Enforcement System Documentation (Par. 6) March 13, 2026 Although the Department has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 32 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the Department requires this amount of time to produce responsive records. The Department must provide details on the tasks necessary to produce the requested records. The Department must also confirm that no segregation or redaction is necessary. The Department must further confirm that $25.00 is the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the requested records. As such, the Department must provide additional information regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable).

Amy M. Clayman, Esq. SPR25/3836 Page 6 January 13, 2026 For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). December 31st Supplemental Response In its December 31, 2025 supplemental response, the Department asserts, “DOR respectfully requests that the Supervisor of Public Records make a determination that the request is designed or intended to harass and intimidate DOR and the agency should be relieved of its obligation to provide the records. In the alternative, DOR requests that the Supervisor determine that the Requester must either pay the fee assessed by DOR in the amount of $800 prior to DOR’s production of the requested public records or abide by the reasonable production schedule ...” The Department is advised that petitions for an extension of time or relief from the obligation to provide responsive records must be submitted to the Supervisor of Public Records within twenty business days of the original request. In this case, the Department provided its supplemental response on December 31, 2025, more than twenty business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact the Department has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, relief from the obligation to provide responsive records cannot be granted. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(d), (f). Please be aware, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Please be advised, in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following:

Amy M. Clayman, Esq. SPR25/3836 Page 7 January 13, 2026 (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. I encourage Mr. Van Etten and the Department to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Van Etten may wish to narrow his request. The Department must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Van Etten 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. Van Etten may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gregory Alvin James Van Etten