Mahoney, Jonathan v. Stoneham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260387)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 18, 2026 SPR26/0387 James P. O’Connor Chief of Police Stoneham Police Department 47 Central Street Stoneham, MA 02180 Dear Chief O’Connor I have received the petition of Jonathan Mahoney appealing the response of the Stoneham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 19, 2025, Mr. Mahoney requested: [1] All reports by the Stoneham Police Department, Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, and any party not mentioned regarding [two identified individuals] for an incident that occurred on or about November 22, 2023 – November 23, 2023. [2.] All audio and video surveillance collected by the Stoneham Police Department, Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, and any party not mentioned. [3.] All communications by the Stoneham Police Department, Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, and any party not mentioned regarding this matter (i.e. emails, phone calls and letters). [4.] All notes by Stoneham Police Department personnel as well as personnel from Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting. [5.] All witnesses’ statements to include written and audio/video recorded. [6.] Total cost of the investigation to include Stoneham Police Department overtime and costs billed by Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting. The Department initially responded on November 24, 2025, providing a fee estimate. 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

James P. O’Connor SPR26/0387 Page 2 February 18, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2025). In my December 16th determination, I ordered the Department to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $125.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The Department responded on December 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mahoney petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0387, was opened as a result. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 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). The Department’s Fee Estimate In its initial November 24, 2025 response, the Department provided a fee estimate of $125.00 to produce the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department stated: As the Town is a municipality with a population in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) people, a fee will not be imposed for the first two (2) hours dedicated to your request. Based on the Town’s good faith estimate, a fee of one hundred and twenty‐five ($125.00) dollars will be required which is based on an estimated 7 total hours at $25.00 an hour to complete your request(s), adjusted for the first two (2) hours not being charged… Please note portions of the responsive records may be redacted and/or withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) and/or as required by law.

James P. O’Connor SPR26/0387 Page 3 February 18, 2026 In its December 30, 2025 response, the Department provided the following additional information: There are approximately forty (40) pages of reports and communications and fifteen (15) separate video recordings that are potentially responsive to your request. These materials contain a myriad of sensitive, private information of third parties such as individual names, private addresses, dates of birth, and personal cell phone numbers. The disclosure of such materials would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are deemed to not be public records and are precluded from disclosure under G. L. c. 66 § 10. Pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o), and G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(p), the Town must redact and/or withhold such information, and said redactions are required by the law. The Town estimated two (2) hours to search for, assemble, gather, and review all potentially responsive records related to your request. That time, however, was not attributed towards the seven (7) hour fee estimate as the Town has a population in excess of 20,000 and has already been exhausted by the Town. The seven (7) hour fee estimate is the estimated amount of time it will take to redact and organize responsive materials as required by law relative to your request. Please be advised that this estimate is rather conservative, especially when factoring in the video records which must be watched and reviewed in their entirety in order to perform the legally required redactions. Each video recording is approximately thirty (30) minutes in length, totaling 7.5 hours for the video recordings review alone. The Town anticipates that the actual time required to redact the requested materials will be far in excess of the Town’s initial seven (7) hour estimate and the actual cost of production of the requested materials will likely grow beyond the initial $125.00 estimate. Additionally, please be advised that the Town implemented the lowest paid employees who are qualified to gather and review the requested materials. The production and redaction of the requested materials, however, must be performed by senior members of the Police Department and the Town’s legal counsel, all of whom incur an hourly wage far in excess of twenty-five ($25) dollars. The Town, therefore, must maintain its twenty-five ($25) dollar an hour calculation for the fee as permitted by G.L. c. 66 § 10 (d). The Town will provide you with any and all public records responsive to this request within fifteen (15) business days from receipt of the above referenced estimated fee payment which may be submitted to the Town Clerk’s Office. Please note portions of the responsive records may be redacted and/or withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) and/or as required by law.

James P. O’Connor SPR26/0387 Page 4 February 18, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mahoney contested the fee and argued that “[d]isclosure of these records is in the public interest[.]” Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department states that it would take 7 hours to produce the responsive records, it remains unclear why the Department requires this much time. In this case, the Department has clarified that it possesses approximately forty (40) pages of reports and communications and fifteen (15) separate video recordings. The Department has also stated that it is not assessing a fee for the first two (2) hours of employee time that was used to search for and compile the requested records, and has confirmed that the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform these tasks is paid more than $25.00 per hour. However, pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Accordingly, where no such petition has been approved, the Department’s fee estimate may not include time spent for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (o), and (p) of the Public Records Law, which are not “required by law.” The Department must advise how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, if redactions are required, I find the Department must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. Please be advised, segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege is interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly,

James P. O’Connor SPR26/0387 Page 5 February 18, 2026 the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $125.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Mahoney and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Mahoney may wish to narrow his request. 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 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, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mahoney with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Mahoney may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Mahoney