DiCenzo, Ryan v. Somerville, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20260130)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 20, 2026 SPR26/0130 Cynthia Amara, Esq. Records Access Officer Law Department City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Amara: On January 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Somerville (City) seeking 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, Ryan DiCenzo, of Tenax Strategies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 29, 2025, Mr. DiCenzo requested the following: [A]ll records, including but not limited to emails, text messages, letters, memos, contracts, invoices, grant applications, meeting minutes, public notices and draft documents from January 1, 2023 to present that reference: Nicotine-Free Generation, Tobacco-Free Generation, Generational ban, NFG, Birthdate ban, Model ordinance, Technical assistance, Grant funding, Bloomberg, or MTCP. a) Correspondence between any municipal official or employee and: [a list of approximately 16 named individuals and entities and] • Any other tobacco control contractors b) All documents related to the development, drafting, consideration, or adoption of Nicotine-Free Generation policies, including model ordinances, presentations, technical assistance materials, and legal analysis c) All contracts, agreements, MOUs, and payment records with tobacco control contractors, specifically including [a list of approximately 8 individuals and entities.] d) All grant applications and awards related to tobacco control from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or private foundations[.] 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0130 Page 2 January 20, 2026 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0130 Page 3 January 20, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under the attorney-client privilege, the City indicates that it will need to redact the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law, and argues the following in support of its request: The requests in items a) and b) are overly broad and imprecise. An initial IT search has produced approximately 546,617 email results and the results most likely contain documents not responsive to the requester. . . . [T]his office called and emailed the requester in an attempt to narrow the request but has not heard back as of the time of this response. Today is the tenth business day and a response to the requester and fee petition is due today. This petition meets the statutory standards stated in G.L.c.66, §10(d)(iv) to be used by the Supervisor in ruling upon petitions such as this, given the volume of material that has been requested, the need for careful review before release of the records, and the potential for the contents of these records to require withholding or redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure under the public records law. The City will need to review all records and may need to redact or withhold for reasons including, but not limited to, the following: 1) Attorney-client correspondence, 2) Inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters regarding policy positions; and 3) Personal cell phone numbers or personal email addresses. Due to the extensive nature of this request, the estimated number of email results, and the estimated time necessary to undertake this endeavor, the requested fee is necessary because this request cannot be “prudently completed without the [review and redaction].” G.L.c.66, §10(d)(iv). 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 that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Mr. DiCenzo and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR26/0130 Page 4 January 20, 2026 City must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Mr. DiCenzo 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: Ryan DiCenzo