Requester, Anonymous v. Haverhill, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20260259)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 2, 2026 SPR26/0259 Kaitlin M. Wright City Clerk City of Haverhill Haverhill City Hall, Room 118 4 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Wright: On January 27, 2026, this office received the petition of Attorney Alexander M. Castro, on behalf of the City of Haverhill (City) seeking 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 City furnished a copy of this petition to the anonymous requestor (requestor). G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 12, 2026, the requestor sought the following records: All invoices/billing statements issued by Mead, Talerman, & Costa, LLC that are dated in calendar year 2025 (January 1, 2025 through January 12, 2026), including any attachments or supporting billing detail that accompanied those invoices as maintained by the City. 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). 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

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/0259 Page 2 February 2, 2026 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, “the City respectfully requests that the Supervisor approve its petition to charge $225.00 per hour for the review and redaction of the responsive records, in excess of the statutory,” and states the following concerning its request: To the extent that invoice entries include descriptions of legal services that disclose (1) the confidential communications between the Town and its legal counsel undertaken for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or assistance; (2) attorney opinion work product sought in anticipation of or during the pendency of litigation; or (3) certain attorney fact work product under Mass. R. Civ. P.26(b)(3) that was prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial, the responsive documents

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/0259 Page 3 February 2, 2026 must be withheld and/or redacted accordingly. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) and (d); Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 449-50 (2007); DaRosa v. City of New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 459 (2015). The lowest paid Town employee capable of segregating and redacting the responsive documents is City Solicitor Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC, who is paid at a rate of $225.00 per hour. As such, pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), the City hereby submits this petition for your approval to charge a segregation and redaction rate equivalent to the City Solicitor’s rate of $225.00 per hour, as opposed to the statutory maximum rate of $25.00 per hour, and to also charge for the first two hours of work performed. . . . The City Solicitor is the Town’s lowest paid – and only – employee with the knowledge and skill required to segregate and redact the responsive records in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Public Records Law. This is especially true considering that the City Solicitor is the only one that provided the services set forth in the responsive records. Lastly, the intent of having the City Solicitor review and, if necessary, redact the response records is to provide greater transparency by redacting only those parts of said records that are protected and/or exempt from disclosure, instead of withholding them in their entirety. Based on the information provided in the City’s January 27th 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I find the City may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. In its petition, the City requests “to also charge for the first two hours of work performed.” As explained above, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce records unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. Accordingly, in requesting to charge for the first two hours, the City requests relief outside the scope of statutory authority given to the Supervisor under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii), (iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. The requestor is advised that they may appeal any fee estimate provided by the City within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, the requestor 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).

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/0259 Page 4 February 2, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anonymous Requestor Alexander M. Castro, Esq.