John Saia v. Malden, City of (SPR 20253851)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 7, 2026 SPR25/3581 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer Office of the City Solicitor City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street, Suite 420 Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: On December 30, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden (City) seeking an extension of time, and 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, John Saia. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 15, 2025, Mr. Saia requested the following: 1) Regarding text and speech translation devices that Malden purchased for front- facing roles, a) any public records that indicate their frequency of use since being purchased, and b) any public records that identify if any training has been provided on use of those devices. 2) Any public records that identify the annual citywide electricity cost for street lights for the last 4 years[.] 3) Any complaints or requests to shorten or extend the use of overnight lighting in the last 4 years. 4) Any records that show what entity received the $140k in ARPA funds allocated to patrol the downtown parking garages, any public records that indicate whether or not those patrols continued since, and any public records that might constitute a follow-up evaluation of public safety risk or concerns related to those garages. 5) Any public records that detail how the $25k in ARPA funds for community gallery space was spent and where that gallery was located[.] 6) Any communications between the City of Malden and First Seed Sown (it’s founder, or any of it’s employees) in the year 2022 and 2023[.] 7) Any public records that indicate money spent by the city of Malden on both the 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3581 Page 2 January 7, 2026 Great Malden Outdoors and The Gaming District, since 2022, and what the spending was for. 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; (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 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: Given the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the City submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the City hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3581 Page 3 January 7, 2026 recovery, segregation and redaction process have many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The City will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. Additionally, in correspondence included with its petition, the City states the following: To date, the Language Access Coordinator and Director of Communications and Marketing have each spent 30 minutes (1 hour total) to complete a thorough search in response to your request. . . . The City’s IT Department conducted a search and identified 430 emails potentially responsive to this request. The City estimates that it takes two minutes to review and redact each email: 430 emails x 2 minutes = 860 minutes ÷ 60 minutes/per hour = 14.33 hours I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current request, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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.

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3581 Page 4 January 7, 2026 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). Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the City argues the following in support of its request to assess fees: The City requests that the Supervisor authorize it to charge a fee to produce the records sought, as set forth below, because the responsive records contain documents that would qualify under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and will require detailed review and redaction prior to production in accordance with the exemption outlined in the Massachusetts Public Records Law Guide. . . . The records sought in the request need to be reviewed, and potentially redacted. As many of these records may contain sensitive information that require redactions (such as tax identification numbers, personal phone numbers, email and home addresses, etc.) the City seeks the ability to charge for redactions under Exemption (c). These documents require redactions in accordance with the exemption set forth at G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). . . . In terms of the second clause of the privacy exemption, it applies to requests for records that implicate privacy interests. Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of the Real Property Dep’t of Boston, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980).

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3581 Page 5 January 7, 2026 Records responsive to this request will thus need to be reviewed and redacted to the extent they contain personal identifiable information, which is sensitive to them. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, Mr. Saia 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: John Saia