McCarter, Brian v. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (SPR 20260172)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0172 Jennifer M. Saubermann, Esq. General Counsel & Director of Government Affairs Massachusetts Technology Collaborative 2 Center Plaza, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Saubermann: On January 16, 2026, this office received the petition of Attorney Robert C. Ross, on behalf of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (Collaborative/MTC) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, and relief from the obligation to produce 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 Collaborative furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Brian McCarter. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 2, 2026, Mr. McCarter requested: The following records regarding the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, the Broadband Operations and Maintenance (BOB) [sic] round, and all predecessor rounds. This request seeks to identify consistency in application handling, reliance on prior submissions, and applicant-agency communications. Please restrict this to 2025 and 2024 records. A. Applications & Versions (All Rounds) 1. All BEAD, BOB, and predecessor-round applications submitted by any applicant who also participated in the BOB round. 2. All versions of said applications (draft, submitted, revised, and final). 3. Any materials incorporated by reference or “stood on” from previous submissions. 4. Version histories, change logs, and tracked-change documents. 5. Applicant certifications and any reaffirmations or amendments thereto. B. Pre-Submission Provider Communications & Access 1. All communications between MassTech/MBI and any applicant before 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

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 2 January 27, 2026 application submission for both the original round(s) and the BOB round. 2. All records regarding pre-application guidance, clarifications, or feedback. 3. Communications discussing eligibility, scoring criteria, coverage areas, technology choices, match requirements, or cost modeling. 4. Records reflecting informal advice, steering, or encouragement to apply or modify proposals. 5. Records identifying which applicants received pre-submission communications and which did not. 6. Calendar & Meetings: All calendar entries, meeting invitations, and Outlook appointments involving MTC staff and any applicant. This includes lists of attendees for all virtual or in-person meetings (including Zoom/Teams logs) and any notes, agendas, or “read-ahead” materials circulated for meetings that were not formally docketed. 7. Technical Assistance: Logs, tickets, or trackers recording “technical assistance” or “support” provided to potential applicants, specifically records differentiating between “general” assistance (e.g., public webinars) and “specific” assistance (e.g., 1-on-1 coaching or reviews). C. Reliance on Prior Applications 1. Records identifying BOB applicants who relied on prior-round submissions. 2. Communications confirming prior materials were sufficient or need not be resubmitted. 3. Crosswalks mapping prior-round materials to BOB requirements. 4. Internal determinations approving or documenting reliance on earlier submissions. D. Contracts & Legal Instruments 1. Draft, final, and executed Project Service Agreements (PSAs). 2. PSA templates and standard terms used for these rounds. 3. Redlines showing changes between drafts. 4. Side letters, amendments, waivers, or conditional terms. 5. Performance bonds, letters of credit, and guarantees. E. Post-Submission Provider Communications 1. All communications with applicants after submission (all rounds). 2. Clarification requests sent to applicants and their responses. 3. Communications concerning scope, cost, schedule, technology, coverage, or match. 4. Requests to revise, reaffirm, or correct submissions. F. Financials & Project Changes 1. Budgets, financial workbooks, and cost models (all rounds). 2. Revised financials or match calculations. 3. Cost reallocations across Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) or project areas. 4. Internal analyses addressing changes or inconsistencies across rounds. 5. Approvals or denials of material changes to budgets or financial scope. G. NTIA Communications 1. All communications with the National Telecommunications and Information

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 3 January 27, 2026 Administration (NTIA) relating to Massachusetts BEAD. 2. Guidance, feedback, conditions, or approvals received from NTIA. 3. Communications addressing reliance on prior-round applications. 4. Drafts and final materials submitted to NTIA. H. Evaluation & Scoring 1. Scoring rubrics, matrices, and weighting criteria. 2. Instructions provided to evaluators. 3. Individual and aggregate scores. 4. Records of overrides, adjustments, or exceptions to standard scoring. 5. Quality Assurance (QA), audit, or review memoranda. 6. Debriefing Materials: Debriefing scripts, notes, or letters provided to unsuccessful applicants, and any internal comparisons or analyses used to explain rejection to losing bidders or selection of winning bidders. I. Governance & Conflicts 1. Conflict-of-interest disclosures. 2. Recusal records and related communications. 3. Records addressing conflicts that were reviewed but where no action was taken. J. Consultants 1. Engagement letters, scopes of work, and invoices for consultants assisting with these rounds. 2. Consultant memoranda influencing scoring, eligibility, reliance on prior rounds, redactions, or cybersecurity claims. K. Cybersecurity & Redactions 1. Risk assessments or analyses supporting cybersecurity claims (specifically regarding “security” redactions). 2. Internal guidance defining “schematics” or “critical infrastructure” for redaction purposes. 3. Records showing consistency or inconsistency in redactions across rounds. 4. Communications with cybersecurity entities regarding these applications. L. Data Sources & Validation 1. Source datasets used to validate CAIs, Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs), and coverage. 2. FCC Fabric versions and GIS layers relied upon. 3. Validation reports, error logs, disputes, or corrections. 4. Cross-round data comparisons. M. Intergovernmental Coordination 1. Communications with municipalities and other state/local agencies regarding these projects. 2. Records of local input, objections, or concurrence. 3. Decisions overriding or disregarding local input. N. Timelines & Milestones 1. Internal timelines, Gantt charts, and milestone plans. 2. Slippage analyses, risk registers, and mitigation plans. O. Enforcement & Remedies

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 4 January 27, 2026 1. Enforcement plans, cure provisions, clawbacks, and default analyses. 2. Discussions regarding termination or reassignment of awards. P. Comparative & Precedent Materials 1. Comparisons between original rounds and the BOB round. 2. Records asserting continuity or material differences between rounds. 3. References to other states’ BEAD practices or precedents. Q. Recordkeeping & Retention 1. Record retention schedules applicable to these grant records. 2. Records of deletion, migration, or alteration of files. 3. Instructions to staff on document creation or retention regarding this program. R. Post-Award Monitoring 1. Reporting templates and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). 2. Early performance or compliance reports. 3. Communications regarding anticipated re-scoping of awarded projects. S. BEAD Challenge Process Adjudications 1. All records regarding the BEAD Challenge Process adjudications for the relevant areas. 2. Communications with applicants regarding the acceptance, rejection, or modification of coverage challenges. 3. Internal memos justifying the upholding or overturning of specific challenges. 4. Data showing which challenges resulted in the removal or addition of BSLs to the grant-eligible map. In a letter to this office on January 23, 2026, Mr. McCarter objected to the Collaborative’s petition. Subsequent to the opening of this petition, Mr. McCarter also forwarded to this office numerous emails and letters from others objecting to the Collaborative’s petition. 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

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 5 January 27, 2026 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 Collaborative requests “an extension of 20 business days” and provides the following information in support of its request: MTC’s preliminary estimate of the scale of this request is approximately 135,000 potentially responsive files that need to be reviewed for responsiveness and applicable exemptions. These records include 21.9 GB of files, representing approximately 9,600 potentially responsive records, and 45.2 GB of emails from 2024 and 2025, representing approximately 125,000 emails that need to be reviewed for responsiveness. This Request overlaps with the request that is the subject of SPR25-3719, which you issued on December 31, 2025, and to which MTC responded on January 15, 2026, as ordered by [the Supervisor of Records]. But this request is significantly broader in scope. While that request sought three categories of records, this request seeks 73 categories of records. As recounted in MTC’s December 23, 2025, submission to you, “MTC ultimately produced 149 files, withheld 54 files or folders containing GIS mapping files as exempt and redacted portions of 27 files in its supplemental response made to the requestor on September 23, 2025.” Together with its follow-up response to SPR25-3719, MTC produced 10 additional documents and six (6) additional file folders with GIS files. As described more fully in the accompanying response to the requestor, MTC expects the yield of responsive files to the January 2 Request to be in the tens of thousands. In 2025, Mr. McCarter submitted fifteen (15) public records requests to MTC, and in the course of a four-week period from December 10, 2025 – January 13, 2026, he made six (6) records requests, including this BEAD request and a nearly identical request related to another MTC program. The request for which we are seeking an extension now, plus the second request related to MTC’s Gap Networks Program, received five days later, will involve review of hundreds of

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 6 January 27, 2026 thousands of documents for responsiveness and applicable exemptions. . . . As discussed [above] ... responding to the Request will involve a significant burden in searching for, collecting, segregating or examining potentially responsive records. MTC reasonably expects that the scale of redactions that are needed to prevent unlawful disclosure is likely to be proportionately larger, 24-25 times larger, than the scope of redactions that were needed for the request at issue in SPR25-3719. There are five staff at the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (“MBI”) with primary responsibility for carrying out the BEAD Program. Only one of those employees has access to, and is able to use, GIS mapping software. That single employee would be responsible for reviewing and redacting thousands of GIS files. In addition, the program touches numerous other staff at MTC, including additional MBI staff, legal and finance staff. There is one attorney at MTC, its General Counsel, responsible for coordinating and reviewing all potential responsive materials. MTC has seven divisions, of which MBI is one, and is managing hundreds of millions of dollars in grants this year. MBI is running eight programs simultaneously, and all the staff responsible for the BEAD program work on multiple projects. The impact of reviewing over 100,000 potentially responsive documents will be significant on staff and hinder MBI’s ability to run its programs, many of which are operating under tight federal timelines (many programs are required to be substantially complete by December 31, 2026). In addition, it is impossible to narrow the search terms used to search staff emails, as not every email related to the BEAD program has the word “BEAD” in it. If MTC narrows the search by NTIA or applicants’ names, this produces records unrelated to the request as MTC is managing other programs receiving funding through NTIA and many of the same BEAD applicants have applied for and receiving grants under other MBI programs. No public interest is served by expeditious disclosure in this case, given the status of the program with NTIA and the fact that MTC is proceeding with its planned awards based on NTIA’s approval. At this point in the process, the Commonwealth can either accept the BEAD funding as granted by NTIA and MTC’s sub-grantees will be able to serve the locations approved by NTIA, or refuse those grants and not build to the locations covered by the BEAD funding. Based on the information provided in the Collaborative’s petition, I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the Collaborative to produce the request without the extension, and efforts undertaken by the Collaborative in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Collaborative has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Collaborative is granted an extension of 20 business days.

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 7 January 27, 2026 Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency 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 agency 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; 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. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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.

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 8 January 27, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Collaborative argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (d), and (n): Exemption (a), through subsection (h) of Section 12 and subsection (a) of Section 4A of Chapter 40J, for A.1-4, B.1 and 3, D.5, E, F, G.4, L.1, P.1, and for all applicable categories in which exempt documents may fall; Exemption (c), for A.1-2 and for all applicable categories in which exempt documents may fall; Exemption (d), for B.2 and 3, C.2, D.2 and 3, G.4, H.5, and for all applicable categories in which exempt documents may fall; Exemption (n), for A.1-4, C.3, E.1-4, G.1 and 4, J.2, L1-4, P.1, S.1, 2, and 4 and for all applicable categories in which exempt documents may fall; In light of the Collaborative’s petition, I find the Collaborative 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 Collaborative 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 Collaborative states that “MTC requests the Supervisor to waive statutory limits on fees that can be charged for responding to this expansive request.” The Collaborative also provides the hourly rates of outside counsel in support of its request. Please be advised that under the Public Records Law, only 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). The Supervisor, however, does not have the authority to permit agencies to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Consequently, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted. Request for Relief In its petition, the Collaborative seeks relief from the obligation to provide records and argues that “this request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are designed to intimidate or harass ... [and] [t]hese requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity.” The Collaborative further argues the following: MBI has met with the requestor numerous times in his capacity as an appointed member on Bourne’s Cable, Internet & Telecommunications Advisory Committee (“CITAC”) to explain its programs and processes. Staff have answered questions,

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 9 January 27, 2026 provided numerous documents related to public records requests, and provided information on this program since its inception. There is no other individual that has requested and received more information from MBI than Mr. McCarter. Elected municipal officials from Bourne and other members of the CITAC have been briefed on MBI’s ongoing programs and their impact on Bourne and none expressed concerns regarding MBI’s level of engagement with the town or the level of information provided. Since November of 2023, MTC has received 37 public records requests from Mr. McCarter, resulting in countless hours of work and the production of thousands of pages of documents, and MTC has never requested a fee for this work. During that same timeframe, MTC has received 97 total public records requests – Mr. McCarter has filed almost 40% of all public records requests received by the agency. In addition, he has filed five Open Meeting Law complaints against MTC in the last year, including two that were submitted within the last week. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the accompanying response under subsection (b), the Supervisor should conclude that this expansive request is intended to harass MTC, given the coincidence in timing with SPR25-3719, the contemporaneous identical and expansive request about the GAP Networks program, and the requestor’s refusal to extend the Supervisor of Record’s deadline for ruling on that appeal. Based on the information provided in the Collaborative’s petition, I find that the Collaborative has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Consequently, relief from the obligation to provide responsive records cannot be granted. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1.

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 10 January 27, 2026 The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. McCarter and the Collaborative to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. McCarter may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the Collaborative to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Collaborative must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency 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, I find the Collaborative has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Collaborative may assess a fee for segregation and redaction limited to $25.00 per hour. Mr. McCarter is advised that he may appeal the Collaborative’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. McCarter 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).

Jennifer Saubermann, Esq. SPR26/0172 Page 11 January 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter Robert C. Ross, Esq.