← Back to Search
Burden, George and Jen v. Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (SPR 20260203)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 01-22-2026
ClosedAppeal
SPR 20260203 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Burden, George and Jen concerning records held by Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District, opened 01-22-2026. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20260203
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Burden, George and Jen
- Date Opened
- 01-22-2026
- Date Closed
- 02-03-2026
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0203 Anne Camaro Executive Director Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District 270 Barnum Road Devens, MA 01434 Dear Ms. Camaro: I have received the petition of George and Jennifer Burden appealing the response of the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Mr. and Ms. Burden requested: Please provide the total call counts of 911 calls received for the period of December 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. Please provide the number of these calls which were considered non[-]emergency. If you cannot provide the number of these calls which were considered non[-]emergency, please provide all call recordings between December 1, 2025 [and] December 31, 2025. The District responded on January 21, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Mr. and Ms. Burden petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0203, was opened as a result. 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 (two) 2 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 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 Anne Camaro SPR26/0203 Page 2 February 3, 2026 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 Appeal In their January 22, 2026 appeal petition, Mr. and Ms. Burden objected to the fee stating it, “effectively blocks our ability to obtain records that are directly relevant to our defense and to understanding why we were charged for a single 911 call…” The District’s January 21st Response In its January 21, 2026 response, the District provided a fee estimate of $8,706.25 and explained the following: There were 1,401 911 calls received at NVRDD in the month of December. There are no responsive records that document the number of calls that were considered non-emergency. In order for me to provide you with the recordings of the 911 calls for the month of December, I will need to search, identify, and listen to each one of the 1,401 calls. As you know from previous requests this is an extensive and time consuming process. Each one of the 1,401 calls will require the following steps: searching the recording system, reviewing each audio file, identifying records or portions thereof that are exempt from disclosure under the public records law, redacting and saving the audio. This process takes an average of 15-20 minutes per call. We estimate it will take approximately 348.25 hours of work to complete this portion of your request. The estimated cost is $8,706.25 which must be paid in advance before work can begin. The calculation of this fee is explained below. 1,401*15(mins) = 21,015 minutes of work 21,015/60(mins) = 350.25 hours of work 350.25-2(hrs) = 348.25 hours of work that can be billed 348.25(hrs)*$25.00(amount we’re allowed to charge per hour) = $8,706.25 Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office on January 30, 2026, a representative of the District stated, “[t]hese records are the subject of a pending civil matter: see Anne Camaro SPR26/0203 Page 3 February 3, 2026 Town of Lunenburg, et al. v. Burden, Worcester County Superior Court Docket No. 2585CV01256…” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Based on information provided in the District’s January 30, 2026 correspondence, this office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. and Ms. Burden’s request, is active and ongoing in the Massachusetts Superior Court. See Town of Lunenburg, acting by and through its Select Board and its Chief of Police et. al vs. Burden, George B. et al, Worcester County Superior Court Docket No. 2585CV01256. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this litigation could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George and Jennifer Burden