Swanson, William v. Shelburne Police Department (SPR 20260614)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 2, 2026 SPR26/0614 Gregory D. Bardwell Chief of Police/Records Access Officer Shelburne Police Department 623 Mohawk Trail Shelburne, MA 01370 Dear Chief Bardwell: On February 24, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Shelburne Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, William Swanson. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 12, 2026, Mr. Swanson requested, “copies of any and all records generated, received, maintained, or transmitted by the Shelburne Police Department between September 20, 2025 and February 12, 2026 concerning any accusations, allegations, statements, complaints, reports, or claims made about [an identified individual].” 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 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

Gregory D. Bardwell SPR26/0614 Page 2 March 2, 2026 municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the Department requests, “the full twenty-five (25) business-day extension to respond to the above-referenced request.” In support of its request the Department provides the following information: The request is subject-based and spans multiple record repositories and communication platforms. It implicates both electronic and paper records and requires coordinated searches across the Department’s records management system, CAD system, body-worn camera storage system, email servers, and other official communication systems. The Shelburne Police Department is a small municipal agency staffed by six full- time employees. I serve concurrently as Chief of Police and Records Access Officer. The Department has no employee dedicated exclusively to public records processing. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension of 25 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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).

Gregory D. Bardwell SPR26/0614 Page 3 March 2, 2026 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. 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 determination 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (d) and (f): The request expressly includes, but is not limited to:

Gregory D. Bardwell SPR26/0614 Page 4 March 2, 2026 • Incident and supplemental reports, narratives, and investigative notes • Written or recorded statements • Internal memoranda • SMS text messages • Email correspondence (including attachments) • Communications with third parties • Audio recordings and body-worn camera footage • Dispatch logs and CAD entries • Documentation reflecting disposition or status The breadth of the request requires: • Comprehensive system-wide searches • Individualized review of potentially responsive communications • Careful segregation of non-responsive material • Line-by-line legal review to identify statutory exemptions • Redaction of protected information prior to production Responsive records, if any, are likely to implicate exemptions under G.L. c.4, §7(26), including but not limited to: • Exemption (a) – Statutorily exempt records (including, where applicable, CORI or other confidentiality provisions) • Exemption (c) – Materials the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy • Exemption (d) – Attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product • Exemption (f) – Investigatory materials compiled out of the public view, where disclosure would prejudice law enforcement efforts In light of the Department’s petition, I find that the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 25 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Swanson has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by

Gregory D. Bardwell SPR26/0614 Page 5 March 2, 2026 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: William Swanson