Smith, Jeffery v. Hardwick, Town Of (SPR 20260132)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0132 Ryan J. Witkos Town Clerk Town of Hardwick 307 Main Street - P. O. Box 575 Gilbertville, MA 01031 Dear Mr. Witkos: On January 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Hardwick (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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 Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Jeffrey Smith. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 3, 2025, Mr. Smith requested the following: Attendance and time-off records (including working hours, sick leave, vacation time, personal days, and any other leave categories) used for payroll purposes from July 1, 2024, to the present for all town government employees, including but not limited to: - Town Assessor - Town Accountant - Town Treasurer - Town Administrator - Town Administrative Assistant - And any other town employees On December 29, 2025, after receiving responsive records from the Town, Mr. Smith expanded his request as follows: [T]he actual attendance and time-off records in their original or standard payroll format, such as: - Bi-weekly or monthly timesheets or leave usage reports for each employee. - Detailed payroll registers or reports showing dates, hours worked, and all leave 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 J. Witkos SPR26/0132 Page 2 January 21, 2026 categories taken. - Leave balance statements or accruals used for payroll verification. 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 Town requests an extension of 15 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: By way of background, the Town has already responded to close to two dozen public records requests sent by this Requestor since the start of 2025 which consists of, but is not limited to asking for emails, text messages, telephone records of almost two dozen officials; requests for payroll, time sheets, attendance, and time-off records for every town employee (over one hundred.) . . .

Ryan J. Witkos SPR26/0132 Page 3 January 21, 2026 Indeed, the Treasurer/collector is the only employee capable of reviewing the responsive records and gathering such information. The current Treasurer/ collector started in April 2025 after the incumbent abruptly resigned with no time for training, understanding systems, logistics, storage, etc. In addition, the payroll system the Town utilizes does not have the functionality to handle accruals according to some Town employees union contracts. We estimate twenty minutes per payroll warrant that needs to be disassembled, scanned, and reviewed for potentially redaction of personal information that may be exempt from disclosure. The Requestor is asking for records from July 1, 2024 to November 3, 2025 and there are approximately thirty-five warrants that must be reviewed which total almost 12 hours whereas we are providing a reduced estimate of ten hours. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the Town to produce the request without the extension, efforts undertaken by the Town in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 15 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.

Ryan J. Witkos SPR26/0132 Page 4 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). Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Town requests to assess fees for segregation and redaction, and explains the following in support of its request: The Town has carefully reviewed this request, and based on the Town’s initial good faith work, the Town anticipates that there are records that must be located and that information contained in the responsive records will contain information protected, confidential and personal 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). In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Town states the following concerning its request to charge a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour:

Ryan J. Witkos SPR26/0132 Page 5 January 21, 2026 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 Treasurer/collector the full rate of $43.33/hour to respond to this request. As grounds for this Petition, therefore, the Town states that there is good cause for permitting the Town to charge the initial cost estimate because the Treasurer/collector is the lowest paid employees capable of (1) locating the responsive records and (2) reviewing all such records for necessary redactions for privacy and other related legal and policy considerations, respectively. See SPR 22/2793 (approving fee estimate where attorney was only employee “with the necessary skill to determine whether the attorney-client privilege requires certain portions of the records … to be redacted” and “whether other exemptions apply”). Based on the information provided above, I find the Town has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 15 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction, limited to $25.00 per hour. Please note, Mr. Smith 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: Jeffrey Smith