Paskowski, Elizabeth v. Somerset, Town of - Water Department (SPR 20260518)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 27, 2026 SPR26/0518 Jacquelyn Ferreira Office Manager Town of Somerset Water Department 3249 County Street Somerset, MA 02726 Dear Ms. Ferreira: I have received the petition of Elizabeth Paskowski appealing the response of the Town of Somerset Water 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 16, 2025, Ms. Paskowski requested the following: All communication records - emails, texts, letters - from the Water and Sewer Board [a list of identified individuals]; the interim Superintendent of the Water and Sewer Departments [a named individual]; Town Administrator [a named individual]; and Selectmen [a list of identified individuals] for the dates between Jan 1st and May 12th, 2025 WITH Wright-Pierce Engineering Firm and engineers [named individuals.] The Department responded on January 2 and January 30, 2026, providing fee estimates. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Paskowski petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0518, was opened as a result. 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 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 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

Jacquelyn Ferreira SPR26/0518 Page 2 February 27, 2026 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 2nd and January 30th Responses In its January 2, 2026 response, the Department states the following: Based on the foregoing, upon receipt of your payment in the amount of $35.00 made payable to the Town of Somerset, the Water Department will begin the requested work necessary to pay the IT Contractor to query your request. Once the number of emails are determined, we can then determine our Department's labor cost for this request. 950 CMR 32.06(2)(f). Subsequently, I understand Ms. Paskowski paid the fee of $35.00. In its January 30, 2026 response, the Department states the following: Upon receipt of your payment of $35.00 on January 6, 2026, we requested our IT

Jacquelyn Ferreira SPR26/0518 Page 3 February 27, 2026 Contractor to query your request. We received the query back today with 877 emails. Based on the foregoing, upon receipt of your payment in the amount of $367.50 made payable to the Town of Somerset, the Water Department will begin the requested work necessary to fulfill your request. 950 CMR 32.06(2)(f). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Paskowski states that “I am appealing the $35.00 i paid on Jan 6, 2026. i do not understand why that is a separate charge on top of the labor charged.” She further states that “i am also appealing the Good Faith Estimate I received for that request.” In this case, where Ms. Paskowski has already paid the initial $35.00 fee, I am unable to address that portion of her appeal. Modification Regarding the Department’s $367.50 fee estimate, in an email to this office and the Department on February 12, 2026, Ms. Paskowski explains the following: While appealing the estimate i realized that i hadn’t specified that i was only interested in correspondence about regionalizing our sewer with Fall River (and not other jobs/tasks that the department had with Wright-Pierce.) i am so upset with myself for leaving that out of the request. i don’t know if that is why the estimate is much higher than i expected. i do not want correspondence that doesn’t have to do with regionalizing our sewer with Fall River. i am hoping whoever determined the Good Faith Estimate learns of my mistake of not specifying that the correspondence i am looking for has to do with Regionalization Sewer with Fall River. I would’ve hoped that was obvious from my past requests but i know it should’ve been included in that one. Please let me know if leaving that out made a difference in the estimate, and if so, how to fix it. [sic] In multiple emails to this office and the Department on February 17, 2026, Ms. Paskowski further modified the scope of her request. Additionally, in an email to Ms. Paskowski and this office on February 17, 2026, a representative for the Department indicates that she will forward the above modification to the Department’s IT consultant. Where Ms. Paskowski and the Department have both shown a willingness to modify the

Jacquelyn Ferreira SPR26/0518 Page 4 February 27, 2026 scope of the request, this office encourages Ms. Paskowski and the Department to continue communicating in order 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 the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Paskowski and the Department communicate further as described above, Ms. Paskowski may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Elizabeth Paskowski