Thompson, Andrew v. Monson, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260055)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0055 Mary F. Watson Town Clerk Town of Monson 110 Main Street Monson, MA 01057 Dear Ms. Watson: I have received the petition of Andrew Thompson appealing the response of the Town of Monson (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 1, 2025, Mr. Thompson requested “records related to the Monson Police Department’s use of Flock Safety license-plate reader (ALPR) technology and associated services, for the period January 1, 2023 through the present.” Specifically, Mr. Thompson sought: [1] Contractual Documents  All contracts, service agreements, subscription agreements, purchase orders, renewal terms, and amendments between the Town of Monson / Monson Police Department and Flock Safety.  Documents showing the start date, initial term length, renewal provisions, termination clauses, and pricing (including grant offset details). [2] Financial Records  All invoices, billing statements, grant reimbursement requests, or grant award notifications related to the Flock Safety system.  Records identifying the funding source (e.g., Byrne JAG grant), including internal memos or communications referencing the use of grant funds for this purpose. [3] Policies, Procedures, & Internal Guidance  The written ALPR policy or Standard Operating Procedure used by the Monson Police Department governing: o permissible uses, 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

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 2 January 21, 2026 o prohibited uses, o data retention, o audit logging, o user access controls, o training requirements.  Any internal guidance documents or presentations used to brief staff, town officials, or the public on the Flock system. [4] Data-Sharing & Access Agreements  Any data-sharing agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOUs), or access-control documents describing which outside agencies may access Monson’s ALPR data through the Flock Safety platform.  Any documentation submitted to or received from NESPIN, MAGLOCLEN, state police, regional information-sharing networks, or any federal partners regarding Monson’s participation in cross- jurisdictional ALPR data systems.  Any correspondence with Flock Safety regarding agency access approvals, revocations, or changes to the list of agencies with visibility into Monson’s data. [5] Transparency Portal / Audit Logs  The most recent 3 months of system audit logs showing: o number of searches, o number of hotlist hits, o agencies conducting searches (without personal identifiers), o internal use audits.  Any internal reports prepared for the Chief, Select Board, or other officials summarizing ALPR activity. [6] Public-Facing and Public-Discourse Materials  Emails, memos, presentations, meeting packets, or communication materials prepared for the Select Board, town officials, or the public that reference: o adoption of the Flock Safety system, o justification or need, o public-safety impact, o privacy or civil-liberties considerations, o public comments or questions regarding the system. [7] Installation & Operational Records  Records identifying: o dates of installation, o camera locations (street names or general intersections), o dates the system became operational, o any outage reports or maintenance notes.

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 3 January 21, 2026 The Town initially responded on December 11, 2025, assigning the request reference number PR-664 and providing a fee estimate. On December 12, 2025, Mr. Thompson modified his request by asking the Town to limit its search to five identified email accounts and five specific search terms, with a date rage “from January 1, 2023 through the present.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/3656 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22, 2025). In my December 22nd determination, I found that where Mr. Thompson modified the scope of his request on December 12, 2025, it was unnecessary to opine on the Town’s December 11th fee estimate. On December 23, 2025, Mr. Thompson provided a “supplemental clarification and further narrowing of scope,” to “supersede all prior versions” of his request. The Town sought further clarification on December 24, 2025. Subsequently, on December 26, 2025, Mr. Thompson modified his request again, breaking it into two separate requests as follows: Request 1 [1] Targeted ALPR Log Entries at Issue Based on records already produced, I am requesting additional records specifically associated with (5) ALPR searches:  Three (3) searches with the stated reason listed as “Well-Being Check”  Two (2) searches for which the stated reasons is unclear, ambiguous, or not self-explanatory[.] [2] Records Requested for Each Identified Search For each of the five (5) ALPR searches identified above, please produce records sufficient to show: [1] Requesting Party  The name of the agency requesting or authorizing the search  The name and title of the individual who requested, initiated, or authorized the search  Whether the requested originated internally or from and external agency [2] Incident or Case Basis  Any associated CAD number, incident number, case number, or report identifier  The date and general nature of the underlying incident or call for service, if maintained  Records linking the ALPR search to a specific law-enforcement or public-safety purpose

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 4 January 21, 2026 [3] Search Authorization and Justification  Records identifying the specific justification for each search beyond a generic label (e.g., “Well-Being Check”)  Any dropdown selections, coded entries, or free-text fields used to document the reason for use  Any policy, directive, or guidance governing when a well-being or welfare check may justify an ALPR search [4] User Accountability  Identification of the authorized user account that executed each search  Any supervisory approval, review, or audit records, if such records are maintained[.] If no CAD number, incident number, case identifier, or requesting-party record exists for a given search, please produce records sufficient to show that no such record exists. Request 2 [1] Custodians to Be Searched (Limit to These Accounts Only)… Please search only the following [five identified email accounts]. [2] Search Terms (Exact Keyword Search Only)… Please conduct a digital email search using only the following terms:  “Flock”  “Flock Safety”  “ALPR”  “LPR”  “license plate reader” [3] Date Range (Narrowed)… Please search for records from January 1, 2023 through the present. [4] Types of Records Requested (Limited to Electronic Email Only) This request is limited solely to email correspondence (Inbox, Sent, and archived folders) including:  Subject lines  Message bodies  Attachments (if any)… The Town responded on December 29, 2025 and December 30, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Thompson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0055, was opened as a result.

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 5 January 21, 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). The Town’s December 29th and December 30th Responses In its December 29, 2025 response, the Town provided some responsive records and a fee estimate of $875.00 to produce additional responsive records. In addition, the Town provided “answers to the numbered requests from [the] Chief of Police,” and “an explanation as to the good faith estimate based on the number of emails.” The Town further noted, “[t]here are no emails from the Town Administrator regarding your request.” On December 30, 2025, the Town provided additional responsive records that appear to have been inadvertently excluded from the Town’s December 29th production. In support of its fee estimate, the Town provided the following information: Hours required to complete the request: 35 Hourly rate (at the lowest hourly rate of person completing request no more than $25): $25.00 Total Search Fees: $875.00 Total segregate and/or redact Fees: $0.00 Total Cost Good Faith Estimate: $875.00 Additionally, the Town’s Chief of Police explained:

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 6 January 21, 2026 I have checked the lieutenant and chief’s email for “Flock”, “LPR” and “License Plate Reader” from 1/1/2023-present – as I believe that those searches would capture “Flock Safety” and “ALPR” in the search. I did not check Police Administrative Assistance as I believe the number of emails would be negligible. Monson Police Department does not possess any email accounts for the Town Administrator or the Town Clerk. There appear to be approximately 2,120+/- emails between the Chief and lieutenant email boxes. The breakdown, as requested by the requestor is: Lieutenant – “Flock”: 795 +/- “LPR”: 500 +/- “License Plate Reader”: 155 +/- [An identified individual] – “Flock” : 464+/- “LPR”: 123 +/- “License Plate Reader”: 82 +/- Each email would require individual review and potential redaction, as many contain law-enforcement–sensitive or confidential information. Using a conservative estimate of one minute per email for review and redaction, the total time required to produce all requested emails is approximately 35 hours. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Thompson argued that the Town’s fee estimate is “not adequately supported,” and stated, “…it is impossible to determine whether the estimate reflects the actual scope of work required, or whether it is based on an inflated record count methodology.” Fee Waivers 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).

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 7 January 21, 2026 Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Town states that it would take 35 hours to produce the remaining responsive records, it is unclear why the Town requires this much time. In this case, the Town’s fee estimate appears not to include a fee for segregation or redaction, however the Town’s explanation states, “[e]ach email would require individual review and potential redaction… the total time required to produce all requested emails is approximately 35 hours.” Accordingly, the Town must clarify how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, if redactions are required, I find the Town must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. Further, although the Town states that it possesses approximately 2,120 responsive emails to be reviewed and redacted at one minute per email, the Town must clarify how many pages of responsive documents it possesses and how many minutes per page the Town requires to segregate or redact the records. The Town’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation of the Town’s population and how a fee may be assessed for the first two hours of employee time. The Town must also clarify whether the rate of $25 per hour is rate of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s). Accordingly, the Town must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Pursuant to 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). Consequently, the Town must also clarify whether its fee estimate includes time for segregation or redaction not required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Town must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $875.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Thompson and the Town to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Thompson may wish to narrow his request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Thompson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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

Mary F. Watson SPR26/0055 Page 8 January 21, 2026 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Thompson may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Thompson