Best-Kind, Kendall v. Harwich, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260403)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0403 Julie Judge Records Specialist Harwich Police Department 183 Sisson Road Harwich, MA 02645 Dear Ms. Judge: I have received the petition of Kendall Best-Kind appealing the response of the Harwich 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 December 20, 2025, Ms. Best-Kind requested, “all records in the possession, custody, or control of the Harwich Police Department related to me, my animals, and any reports or complaints I made regarding abuse, domestic violence, threats, intimidation, or safety concerns, from January 1, 2019 to the present.” Specifically, Ms. Best-Kind sought: [1] All police reports, incident reports, narratives, supplemental reports, and internal notes referencing:  My name…  My animals (dogs and cats, individually or collectively)  Any calls, complaints, welfare checks, or responses involving the above [2] All 911 call logs, CAD entries, dispatch records, and call summaries related to:  Calls made by me  Calls made about me  Calls involving my animals, my residence, or my safety [3] All body-worn camera footage, dash camera footage, photographs, or video recordings connected to any such incidents or responses. [4] All communications, including emails, text messages, internal messaging systems, memoranda, or other correspondence, between:  Harwich Police Department personnel 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

Julie Judge SPR26/0403 Page 2 February 19, 2026  Animal Control Officers  Other municipal employees or agencies that reference me, my animals, or related reports or complaints. [5] Any records reflecting decisions not to investigate, not to cite, not to seize, or otherwise take no action in matters involving my animals or complaints I made. [6] All records related to reports, complaints, or calls made by me regarding abuse, domestic violence, threats, intimidation, or safety concerns, including incident reports, officer narratives, call logs, body-worn camera footage, photographs, and internal communications reflecting decisions to act or not act. On January 5, 2026, it appears Ms. Kind modified the timeframe of her original request to “January 1, 2021 to the present.” On January 6, 2026, Ms. Kind made an additional request for the following: …any and all records in the possession, custody, or control of the Harwich Police Department relating to communications with Brewster Veterinary Hospital concerning my cat … including but not limited to records associated with his illness, death, or any follow-up or investigation related thereto. Accordingly, this request specifically includes, but is not limited to:  Any reports, notes, emails, call logs, memoranda, or internal documentation reflecting contact between Brewster Veterinary Hospital and the Harwich Police Department;  Any records indicating that [an identified officer] contacted, consulted with, or followed up with Brewster Veterinary Hospital regarding this matter;  Any documentation received from Brewster Veterinary Hospital by the Harwich Police Department, whether formal or informal, written or electronic;  Any records reflecting decisions to investigate, decline to investigate, or otherwise take or not take action related to this matter. This request covers the period from March 15, 2024 through December 31, 2025. The Department responded on January 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Best-Kind petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0403, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided a supplemental response on February 11, 2026. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public

Julie Judge SPR26/0403 Page 3 February 19, 2026 records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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 January 16th and February 11th Responses In its January 16, 2026 response, the Department provided a responsive police report “with redactions to the names of voluntary complainants and witnesses” pursuant to G. L. c. 93H as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. In addition, the Department stated:

Julie Judge SPR26/0403 Page 4 February 19, 2026 In this instance, portions of your inquiry require the Police Department to conduct independent research and provide all records that involve you, your animals, or reference to you for a period of time spanning more than 5 years and that the request is intended to encompass the complete body of materials held by the Department in any format. In addition, you request broadly and without the requisite specificity that the Police Department also provide any “emails, text messages, internal messaging systems, memoranda, or other correspondence.” …Without waiving any of the Police Department’s rights under the Public Records Law, these broad inquiries requiring independent research do not satisfy the statutory standard for a reasonable request as the Police Department cannot possibly be expected to derive what records you are seeking… Given the scope of your request and the requirement that research be conducted to decipher the same, it cannot be fully responded to at this time without additional clarification… As a preliminary matter, as you know, the Police Department has already provided you with, on multiple occasions, some of the reports that it appears you may be looking to obtain. In some instances, the same reports have been emailed to you on different dates… The Department also provided a fee estimate of $350.00 in order to produce additional responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department provided the following information: As permitted by law, the police department may charge for employee search time to locate and identify additional non-exempt records, other than those enclosed or exempt as outlined above, at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling, segregating, redacting where required by law, and reproducing responsive records, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i)... That time is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of locating the responsive records… Harwich RAO $25hr x 4hrs search for police records Admin Lieutenant $25hr x 4hrs search for police records Information Tech Staff $25hr x 6hrs conduct electronic searches for emails Upon receipt of payment of the total amount of $350, payable by cash or check to the Town of Harwich, the police department will begin the work necessary to comply with all items of your request. In its supplemental response on February 11, 2026, the Department provided the following additional information:

Julie Judge SPR26/0403 Page 5 February 19, 2026 - Ms. Best-Kind had initially requested a timeframe of 01/01/2019 to present as it pertained to her request for records. Her request was sent on Saturday, December 20, 2025. I sent her a response to this request on January 5, 2026… In that response I included a fee estimate of $350. In that email, I sent her a police report that she had requested regarding an animal welfare check we had done at Ms. Best-Kind’s now former residence. I unintentionally omitted the photographs from the report however those were sent the very next day. This report was provided free of charge. - On January 5, 2026, Ms. Best-Kind … reduced the start date of timeframe from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021 … I did not change the estimate. From 01/01/2019 to 01/01/2021 we have 12 documented cases involving Ms. Kind. From the revised timeline of January 1, 2021, to the present we have 133 documented cases involving Ms. Best-Kind. - In addition, Ms. Best-Kind is requesting additional information communications between the Harwich Police Department and/or Animal Control Officer Harrington, and Brewster Vet. The time range on this request is March 15, 2024, through December 31, 2025. - Both the reduced timeline and additional request for communications between the department and Brewster Vet were treated as a new request… - Processing the cases in and of itself would take a lengthy amount of time. The processing of emails, text messages and phone calls is going to take a large amount of time. - The estimate of 6 hours for the Tech Staff was based on a similar timeline of a different request in which the Town of Harwich IT Director provided the 6- hour estimate. - The combined 8 hours for the RAO and I to locate and properly redact the record … is a fair [sic] based on the records that have been requested. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Best-Kind stated, “I am appealing the January 16, 2026 response and fee estimate of $350 related to my public records requests…” In an email to this office on February 11, 2026, Ms. Best-Kind stated: After reviewing records previously produced to me in November 2025, it appears that certain responsive records may not have been included… I have submitted multiple records requests to the department over time concerning these matters, which contributed to my concern that the prior production may have been incomplete. Given this, I would appreciate confirmation that a comprehensive search was conducted across all responsive sources… In subsequent emails to this office on February 11, 2026 and February 12, 2026, Ms. Best-Kind reiterated her concerns that she has not received all the responsive records to her prior requests.

Julie Judge SPR26/0403 Page 6 February 19, 2026 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 indicates that it will take 14 hours to search for the responsive records, it is unclear why the Department requires this much time. In this case, the Department appears not to be charging a fee for segregation or redaction and has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 per hour is equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks. However, although the Department has noted the existence of “133 documented cases involving Ms. Best-Kind,” the Department must provide additional explanation of the task(s) involved in the search process and explain why it will take 4 hours each for the Harwich RAO and the Admin Lieutenant to search for police records and 6 hours for IT to conduct “electronic searches” for emails. The Department’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation of the Town’s population and how a fee may be assessed for the first two hours of employee time. Accordingly, 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 $350.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). With regard to Ms. Best-Kind’s objections regarding the Department’s prior production(s) of responsive records, please be advised that where Ms. Best-Kind submitted new and modified requests for the same or similar records on December 20, 2025, January 5, 2026, and January 6, 2026, and the Department has yet to produce the records, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Ms. Best-Kind may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Julie Judge SPR26/0403 Page 7 February 19, 2026 This office encourages Ms. Best-Kind and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Best-Kind may wish to narrow her 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 Ms. Best-Kind with a response to the request(s), 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. Ms. Best-Kind 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: Kendall Best-Kind Aram Goshgarian