Giordano, Ron v. Salisbury, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260268)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0268 Melinda Morrison Town Clerk Town of Salisbury 5 Beach Road Salisbury, MA 01952 Dear Ms. Morrison: On January 27, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Salisbury (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting a waiver of statutory limits to 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, it is my understanding that the Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Ronald Giordano. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 12, 2026, Mr. Giordano requested, a “[c]opy of any and all Lawsuits, Cost to the Town, Attorneys fees from 1/1/20 to 12/31/25.” Petition 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. 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

Melinda Morrison SPR26/0268 Page 2 February 3, 2026 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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the Town requests “an additional thirty (30) business days to respond to this request following receipt of any good faith estimate” and provides the following information in support of its request: …given the significant volume of records requested for a five year period and in light of the Town’s limited public resources and staffing, as well as operational considerations at this time, including, but not limited to, budget review for the upcoming fiscal year and Town Meeting preparation. … Here, after review of this request in good faith, the Town does not have a list or chart containing the information sought. Therefore, to respond to the request, the Town will need to undertake an exhaustive search of all Town documents for records relating to matters under active litigation and prior litigation involving the Town in any respect for a period of five years, including a review of legal invoices, court documents and related litigation files. In addition, invoices for Town Counsel services must be reviewed and redacted to remove privileged information. As no narrowing criteria is provided in the request, the Town must review significant documentation for all Town departments and coordinate a comprehensive search of its records for litigation related documents with limited staffing at this time to conduct such work. Compliance presents a significant strain on the Town’s limited public resources, based on the language of the request currently. … Therefore, the Town respectfully requests … an additional thirty (30) business days following receipt of payment to further respond to the request given the volume of records at issue for a multiple year period and the necessary review required by Town Counsel, as outlined above. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to

Melinda Morrison SPR26/0268 Page 3 February 3, 2026 permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 understanding 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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,

Melinda Morrison SPR26/0268 Page 4 February 3, 2026 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 Town is seeking approval “…for permitting the Town to charge $75.00/hour for Town Counsel services for the privilege review and the full salary rates for the time of the Town Manager and Town Clerk.” The Town provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: Here, after review of this request in good faith, the Town does not have a list or chart containing the information sought. Therefore, to respond to the request, the Town will need to undertake an exhaustive search of all Town documents for records relating to matters under active litigation and prior litigation involving the Town in any respect for a period of five years, including a review of legal invoices, court documents and related litigation files. In addition, invoices for Town Counsel services must be reviewed and redacted to remove privileged information. As no narrowing criteria is provided in the request, the Town must review significant documentation for all Town departments and coordinate a comprehensive search of its records for litigation related documents with limited staffing at this time to conduct such work. Compliance presents a significant strain on the Town’s limited public resources, based on the language of the request currently. Further, the request seeks documents from a period of five years without sufficient specificity as to the “cost” being sought, See Friedman v. Division of Admin. Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024). Based on the Town’s initial work on this request in good faith, it is therefore expected to require significant time spent on behalf of the Town Manager and Town Clerk to search for and compile the requested litigation records, in coordination with other Town departments. Without an adjustment in the statutory rate, the Town will incur significant financial loss to the detriment of the Town if it is required to pay Town officials and employees their hourly rate without any adjustment by the Division. As grounds for this Petition, therefore, the Town states that there is good cause for permitting the Town to charge $75.00/hour for Town Counsel services for the privilege review and the full salary rates for the time of the Town Manager and Town Clerk because Town Counsel, the Town Manager, and Town Clerk are the lowest paid employees capable of searching for and locating responsive records, and for Town Counsel, reviewing responsive records for attorney-client privilege.

Melinda Morrison SPR26/0268 Page 5 February 3, 2026 Accord SPR22/2793 (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”). Additionally, here, the cost estimate has been reduced from the “actual cost” of responding to the request, as Town Counsel’s rate has been reduced to $75.00/hour for purposes of demonstrating that the fee estimate is made in good faith and in an attempt to be reasonable, and is not designed to limit, deter, or otherwise prevent any access to the non-exempt or confidential records, but rather, to partially compensate the Town for the actual costs of complying with the requests. Therefore, the Town respectfully requests that the statutory cap on fees for search, compilation, redaction, and reproduction time be waived, and that the Town be authorized to assess fees for this work at the rate of $75.00/hour for Town Counsel to conduct a privilege review, and $84.18/hour for the Town Manager, $50.03/hour for the Town Clerk to conduct searches to locate responsive records in hard copy and paper form…. Based on the information provided in the Town’s petition, I find the Town has partially 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). In light of the factors in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), I find the Town may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review of those records being reviewed for attorney-client privilege. However, the Town may not assess a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour for the Town Manager and Town Clerk to search and locate responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Conclusion As described above, I find that the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Additionally, I find the Town may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review as described above. Further, this office encourages Mr. Giordano and the Town to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality 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 municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Town is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Town must provide a response to Mr. Giordano within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4).

Melinda Morrison SPR26/0268 Page 6 February 3, 2026 Please note, Mr. Giordano 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: Ronald Giordano