Quemere, Andrew v. Framingham, City of - Police Department (SPR 20260795)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 18, 2026 SPR26/0795 Colleen Kehew Records Access Officer Framingham Police Department 1 William Welch Way Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kehew: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere appealing the response of the Framingham 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 February 20, 2026, Mr. Quemere requested, “[a]ll internal affairs records for [two identified] former Framingham police officers . . . [.]” The Department provided a response on March 5, 2026, which included a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Quemere petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0795, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Department provided additional information regarding its fee estimate in an email to Mr. Quemere and copied to this office on March 6, 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 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 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

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0795 Page 2 March 18, 2026 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 (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 how 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 March 5th and March 6th Responses In its March 5, 2026 response, the Department provided a fee estimate of $525.00 and stated, “[w]hile the Police Department intends to provide these records to you, we will need to spend considerable time in producing these records as required by law.” The Department additionally indicated that the estimate was for a total of 23 hours “to fill this request[,]” that it was not assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time, and that the assessed rate of “$25/hour” is “lower than the hourly wage of the lowest paid employee capable of performing such work[.]” In its supplemental March 6, 2026 response, the Department provided the following additional information regarding its fee estimate: As mentioned in the initial response, the Police Department intends to provide these records; we will need to spend considerable time in producing these records as required by law. More details are included below. Responsive records constitute 288 pages of documents:  IA FILE 2025-11: 265 pages  IA FILE 2025-12: 11 pages  IA FILE 2021-4: 12 pages

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0795 Page 3 March 18, 2026 As these files will need to be reviewed in their entirety before public release, the department has provided a good faith estimate for the amount of time it will take to search, segregate, and redact these records under the exemptions listed in the Public Records Law. We have included below a non-exhaustive list of likely exemptions that will need to be applied, based on the anticipated content of the records. (a) specifically or by necessary implication exempted information directly relating from disclosure by statute; information concerning an to criminal charges, arrests, identifiable individual which relate to the nature or etc. for specific cases and disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial investigations mentioned in proceeding, other judicial proceedings, sentencing, reports incarceration, rehabilitation, or release (c) personnel and medical files or information; also any date of birth, license number, other materials or data relating to a specifically Social Security number; named individual, the disclosure of which may medical information for an constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal identifiable individual; privacy disciplinary documentation (f) The witness exemption states “investigatory materials identity and statements of necessarily compiled out of the public view by law witnesses and/or confidential enforcement or other investigatory officials the informants in ongoing cases, disclosure of which materials would probably so the disclosure of which create prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement a grave risk of directly or that such disclosure would not be in the public indirectly identifying a interest.” Information may be withheld to provide an private citizen; identifying assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that information on police they will speak openly about matters under undercover vehicles, the investigation. Accordingly, any details in witness disclosure of which could statements, which if released create a grave risk of jeopardize public safety by directly or indirectly identifying a private citizen who enabling targeting of officers volunteers as a witness are indefinitely exempt. and compromising secure areas (n) records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, details of shift patterns and plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, work schedule for a specific which relate to internal layout and structural officer; disclosure could elements, security measures, emergency jeopardize public safety by preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or enabling targeting of officers any other records relating to the security or safety of and compromising secure persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, areas transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0795 Page 4 March 18, 2026 chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. (o) the home address, personal email address and home home address, personal email telephone number of an employee of the judicial address, and/or home branch, an unelected employee of the general court, telephone number of an an agency, executive office, department, board, employee commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of a political subdivision thereof or of an authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter 150E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6. (p) the name, home address, personal email address and home address, personal email home telephone number of a family member of a address, and/or home commonwealth employee, contained in a record in the telephone number of the custody of a government agency which maintains family member of an records identifying persons as falling within the employee categories listed in subclause (o) Current Appeal In his March 5, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Quemere objects to the Department’s fee estimate and states the following: The city has not provided any explanation for why it must spend 23 hours on this request. The city has not specified what records it intends to produce. The city has not provided any specific information about the volume of records (such as the number of pages, the length of recordings, etc). The city has not provided a breakdown of the tasks it must do to produce the records. The city also has not cited any exemptions to the Public Records Law, making it unclear whether it has any legal basis for charging fees for its review. Reasonableness of Fee Estimate Where the Department provided a response within 10 business days, it is necessary to review the reasonableness of the Department’s fee estimate. Upon review, although the Department has estimated that it will take 23 hours to produce the responsive records, it is not clear from the Department’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records.

Colleen Kehew SPR26/0795 Page 5 March 18, 2026 Further, the Department must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. 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). Additionally, where the Department claims that it is assessing a fee for redactions under Exemptions (c), (f), (n), (o), and (p), it is unclear how the Department can assess a fee for redactions under Exemptions (c), (f), (n), (o), and (p) in this matter. 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 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). I am not aware that the Department has submitted a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As such, it is uncertain whether the fees include time to redact records under Exemptions (c), (f), (n), (o), and (p). Further, based on the Department’s response, I find the Department must clarify if any redactions will be required by law, and state the applicable statutes, if any. The Department must clarify these matters. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must either revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Quemere with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Quemere