Revelles, Francisco v. Malden, City of (SPR 20260158)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 22, 2026 SPR26/0158 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 January 15, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records, 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, Francisco Revelles. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 5, 2026, Mr. Revelles requested five categories of records, and on January 9, 2026, clarified and re-ordered his requests into “Phases” as follows: PHASE 1 (highest priority / time-sensitive) Item 3 — Police records for Dec. 25, 2025 (Incident #25005674) Please limit Phase 1 to existing records for Incident #25005674 only: • The Incident Report (IR) and associated CAD/dispatch record(s); and • Any Body-Worn Camera (BWC) video/audio associated with Incident #25005674. To reduce scope further, please limit custodian searches for Phase 1 to: [two named individuals] Date range: Dec. 25, 2025 through Dec. 31, 2025. If these records are retrieved from MPD records systems (IR/CAD/BWC repositories) rather than email, please retrieve them from the appropriate systems without conducting broad mailbox searches. If additional custodians/roles are required to locate the IR/CAD/BWC for this incident number, please tell me which role/address is required so I can authorize a minimal expansion. PHASE 2 (after Phase 1 is produced / if needed) Item 1 — ADA Administration Records (Dec. 9, 2025) 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 SPR26/0158 Page 2 January 22, 2026 Please narrow Item 1 to the Dec. 9, 2025 email and any direct replies/forwards of that email thread (no broader policy documents in Phase 2 unless clearly referenced within the thread). Custodian: [a specified email address] only Date range: Dec. 8–Dec. 12, 2025 Search terms: “Revelles” only PHASE 3 (after Phase 2 / if needed) Item 2 — Administrative & Parking (Oct. 6, 2025) Custodian: [specified email address] only Date range: Oct. 5–Oct. 7, 2025 Search terms: “pressure washer” OR “Revelles” (whichever is more effective) Item 5 — Malden Public Library (Dec. 4 and Dec. 24, 2025) To reduce scope, please limit custodians to: [two named individuals] Date ranges: • Dec. 3–Dec. 5, 2025 • Dec. 23–Dec. 26, 2025 Search terms: “Revelles” only Item 4 — Investigative files ([a named individual] encounter Sept–Oct 2025) Please hold Item 4 for a later phase. After Phases 1–3 are produced, I can narrow Item 4 further based on what’s produced. Fee estimate request (Phase 1 only) Please provide an itemized Phase 1 estimate showing the hourly rate, estimated hours, and the work categories (search/retrieval vs. review/redaction), and an anticipated production date. Once I see the Phase 1 estimate and production plan, I will confirm whether to proceed with Phases 2–3. On January 11, 2026, Mr. Revelles provided further clarification regarding the identities of staff members named in his requests. I understand the City has assigned reference number 2026-0003 to this request. 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0158 Page 3 January 22, 2026 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: The Video Evidence Unit of the Malden Police Department conducted a search of their records pertaining to the December 25, 2025 body-worn camera footage and located (2) files containing body worn camera footage totaling approximately 45 minutes of video. The City’s Police Sergeant took a sample of these recordings and determined that due to the content and length of each recording, it will take approximately 2.25 hours to review and redact these files. A search was conducted for all “internal communications, drafts, policy documents, reports, incident logs,” etc. by the Malden Police Department, the Malden Public Library and the City’s IT Department using the email addresses and key search terms provided[.] . . . This search identified approximately 6 emails potentially responsive to the request. A sample review determined that it will take an average of two minutes to review and redact each email. . . . 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0158 Page 4 January 22, 2026 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 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. 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, and 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. 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0158 Page 5 January 22, 2026 ($.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 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.” The City provides the following information in support of its request: The records sought in the request need to be reviewed, and potentially redacted. 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). . . . Records responsive to the request will thus need to be reviewed and redacted to the extent they contain personal identifiable information, including, but not limited to license plate numbers, keypad entry codes, personal phone numbers. 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.

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0158 Page 6 January 22, 2026 This office encourages Mr. Revelles and the City to continue 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 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. Revelles 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: Francisco Revelles