Douglass, Joe v. Springfield, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260594)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 6, 2026 SPR26/0594 Alesia H. Days, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Springfield 130 Pearl Street Springfield, MA 0103 Dear Attorney Days: I have received the petition of Joe Douglass, of Discrepancy Report, appealing the response of the Springfield 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 January 23, 2026, Mr. Douglass requested the following records: . . . copies of public records held by the Springfield Police Department relating to sustained misconduct matters reflected in Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) records for Springfield officers. For each matter listed below, please produce the internal affairs/investigative file and final disposition records, including, where they exist: complaint/intake materials; assignment documents; investigative reports and attachments; interview summaries or transcripts; findings and decision memos; notices of discipline; suspension letters; retraining orders; use-of-force reviews; and any arbitration/settlement documents that modified discipline. Please also include any “last-chance agreement” or comparable agreement, where applicable. [1] [An identified individual] June 12, 2021; sustained criminal conduct (“Crimes involving [Redacted]” in POST); discipline: suspension 1–5 days. [2] [An identified individual] May 7, 2015, and Feb. 13, 2019; sustained criminal conduct (“Crimes involving [Redacted]” in POST); discipline: suspension 30+ days for each matter. Also March 13, 2018; sustained use of excessive, non-deadly force; discipline: retraining. [3] [An identified individual] May 7, 2015, and Feb. 13, 2019; sustained criminal conduct (“Crimes involving [Redacted]” in POST); discipline: suspension 30+ days for each matter. [4] [An identified individual] May 7, 2015, and Feb. 13, 2019; sustained other 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

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0594 Page 2 March 6, 2026 criminal conduct (as reflected in POST); discipline: suspension 1–5 days for each matter. [5] [An identified individual] Nov. 19, 2020; sustained conduct unbecoming; discipline: suspension 30+ days and last-chance agreement. [6] [An identified individual] July 24, 2023; sustained conduct unbecoming/ policy violation; discipline: suspension 30+ days (noted in POST as a 60 working-day suspension). [7] [An identified individual] July 31, 2021; sustained alcohol or drug abuse; discipline: suspension 30+ days. Also Sept. 1, 2021; sustained motor vehicle accident/unsafe operation/damage; discipline: suspension 30+ days (and any associated retraining and last-chance agreement reflected in department records). [8] [An identified individual] Jan. 12, 2017; sustained alcohol or drug abuse; discipline: suspension 30+ days and last-chance agreement. [9] [An identified individual] Sept. 21, 2018; sustained use of excessive, non- deadly force; discipline: retraining. [10] [An identified individual] June 3, 2011; officer-involved shooting classified in POST as sustained use-of-force; discipline: retraining. [11] [An identified individual] April 26, 1997 and June 6, 1999; sustained use of excessive, nondeadly force; discipline: written reprimand (1997) and retraining (1999). [12] [An identified individual] Jan. 28, 2012; sustained use of excessive, non- deadly force; discipline: suspension 6–29 days. [13] [An identified individual] Oct. 19, 2001; Dec. 16, 2002; March 26, 2014; Feb. 4, 2015; Nov. 12, 2017; sustained matters and disciplines as reflected in POST (including alcohol or drug abuse, improper firearm usage or storage, and conduct unbecoming). [14] [An identified individual] March 13, 2018; Oct. 31, 2018; April 19, 2019 (two sustained matters on that date); sustained conduct unbecoming matters and discipline as reflected in POST. [15] [An identified individual] Nov. 10, 1997, and Oct. 29, 2008; sustained conduct unbecoming matters and discipline as reflected in POST. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0427 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 20, 2026). In my February 20th determination, I learned that the Department sent a further response to Mr. Douglass on February 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Douglass petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0594, 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

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0594 Page 3 March 6, 2026 ($.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 (two) 2 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). Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Douglass asserts, “[t]he City is charging for review/ segregation/ redaction time without demonstrating petition authority[.] The ‘3 minutes per page’ approach is not a good-faith estimate of the actual work required[.] The City has not demonstrated that it used the lowest-paid employee capable of scanning/loading[.]” The City’s February 20th Response In its February 20, 2026 response, which was dated February 17, 2026, the City provided a fee estimate of $6,208.75 and stated the following: There are a total of 4,927 pages of responsive records to be reviewed and redacted by the Law Department in accordance with the Public Records Law. Each record has to be downloaded, reviewed, and redacted. Then the records are saved in the portal for release to the requester. The City charges a set rate of 3 minutes per page for review of the records. That’s a total of 14,781 minutes, This total translates into 246.35 hours for the Law Department review. Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the City has the right to charge for the cost(s) of responding to public records requests. Note we are charging a flat hourly fee of $25/hour to respond to requests, not the actual hourly rate for our staff. Staff Title Time Rate Report Review Law 246.35 $25/hour Scan & Load 4.0 Total Hours 250.35 Hours - 2 hours TOTAL : 248.35 Hours

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0594 Page 4 March 6, 2026 Although the City has estimated that the process of reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 248.35 hours, it is unclear how the City requires this amount of time to produce responsive records. The City must advise how much time it is allocating to search and how much time it is allocating to segregate and redact the records. Further, the City must explain why it will take 3 minutes per page “for review of the records.” The City must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. Accordingly, the City must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Additionally, if the City intends to segregate and/or redact responsive records, it must clarify whether the segregation and/or redaction is required by law and state the applicable statutes, if any. Under 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 pursuant to 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). For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $6,208.75 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Douglass and the City to communicate further to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Douglass may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Douglass 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. Douglass may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joe Douglass