Burden, George and Jen v. Lunenburg, Town of (SPR 20260820)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0820 Adam J. Costa, Esq. Town Counsel Town of Lunenburg Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC 30 Green Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Dear Attorney Costa: On March 6, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Lunenburg (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records, a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, and relief from the obligation to produce 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, I understand that the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestors, George and Jennifer Burden (the Burdens). G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In its petition, the Town describes the Burdens’ requests as follows: Since January 1, 2026, Lunenburg’s Town Manager and Records Access Officer, or RAO, has received 10 public records requests from George and Jennifer Burden (the “Burdens”), i.e. averaging more than one-per-week, as are itemized on the chart or table submitted herewith, entitled “Calendar Year 2026 Public Records Requests from George and Jennifer Burden.” These are in addition to 13 separate requests received from the Burdens by the Town’s Police Department (the “Department”) via a Lieutenant therein who is, together with the Town Manager, designated an RAO under G.L. c. 66, § 6A. Petitions 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: 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

Adam J. Costa, Esq. SPR26/0820 Page 2 March 16, 2026 (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 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Relief In its petition, the Town seeks relief from the obligation to provide responsive records, and argues the following: The Burdens’ requests “are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity,” see G.L. c. 66, § 10(c); though the Burdens will undoubtedly contend otherwise. Their motivations are known if only because the requests they submit provide excessive context and argument regarding the reason(s) that certain information is sought by them; to say nothing of their disparagement and denouncement of Town officials and others. Much of the documentation requested by the Burdens relates to their adversarial relationship with the condominium association of which they are a part, and individual(s) therein, and a belief by the Burdens that the Town and its Police Department were or are complicit in a scheme of illegal activities by the association, or have conspired or are conspiring to effectuate a cover-up, or else are unlawfully disregarding their rights with respect thereto. The scope of the Burdens’ requests has become more expansive of-late, which is believed to be in retaliation for a lawsuit brought against them by the Town, its Police Department and the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (the “NVRDD”) in late-September 2025. The lawsuit was prompted by the Burdens’

Adam J. Costa, Esq. SPR26/0820 Page 3 March 16, 2026 years-long hostile, abusive and harassing conduct in dealings with these public entities or agencies, more specifically their placement of hundreds of non- emergency telephone calls to them - sometimes dozens of calls in a single day - during which the Burdens proceeded to scold, ridicule and even threaten public officials and staff. Recognizing the extreme interference caused by the Burdens’ actions to the productivity of Town, Department and NVRDD staff, and the accompanying deprivation of municipal services to other Lunenburg residents, the Superior Court (Wrenn, J.) issued injunctive relief against the Burdens in mid- January 2026, following a comprehensive, two-day evidentiary hearing. Characterizing the Burdens’ behavior(s) as “causing serious alarm,” Judge Wrenn ordered them to “immediately cease and desist from making any further telephone calls of a nonemergency nature to the Town of Lunenburg, including but not limited to the [P]olice [D]epartment and the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District.” See Town of Lunenburg, et al. v. Burden, Worcester County Superior Court Docket No. 2585CV01256. The Burdens sought review of Judge Wrenn’s Order by a Single Justice of the Appeals Court, who summarily rejected their challenge to it. See Burden v. Town of Lunenburg. et al., Appeals Court Docket No. 2026-J-10174. The Burdens are now using their right of access to public records, even more so than before, to continue their campaign to harass and abuse the Town and the Department where they can no longer do so by telephone. The four (4) requests now at-issue herein are undoubtedly “part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass .. . “ See G.L. c. 66, § 10( c). The 2/22/2026 request asks for all records relating to the Town’s receipt, authorization, expenditure, distribution or management of ARPA funds.” . . . Searching for, segregating and ultimately producing all records relating thereto is a substantial undertaking. In an effort to refine the scope of the Burdens’ 2/22/2026 request, the Town Manager wrote to them on 3/5/2026 . . . Rather than simply communicate, courteously, that they sought more comprehensive documentation than was produced, the Burdens immediately responded to the Town Manager with a rebuke that she had provided incomplete records; copied the Supervisor of Records thereon, requesting that the Division “open an appeal regarding the missing portions of the document” produced; and, incredibly, immediately submitted YET ANOTHER public records request - namely the 3/5/2026 request referred-to above - that is substantially the same as, and thus duplicative of, the still-pending 2/22/2026 request. These absurd actions are standard procedure for the Burdens. Further demonstrating the above point, the Burdens’ 2/23/2026 public records request, seeking records relating to inspections, permit modifications, zoning

Adam J. Costa, Esq. SPR26/0820 Page 4 March 16, 2026 violations and the use of public funds for or at the Village at Flat Hill, is partly redundant. It asks for documents previously produced for the Burdens in response to their 1/14/2026, 1/20/2026 and dual 2/10/2026 records requests. The Burdens’ 2/24/2026 public records request, seeking all communications between Village at Flat Hill trustee(s), or other individuals acting on their behalf, and Town officials or employees, is likewise partly redundant. It asks for documents previously produced for the Burdens 111 response to their 2/22/2026 and, now, 3/5/2026 records requests. Based on the information provided in the Town’s petition, I find that the Town has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). The Burdens and the Town are advised that according to 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(a), “upon request, a requester shall be entitled to receive in hand, by mail, by facsimile or electronically one copy of a public record or any desired portion of a public record.” Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Town requests that “insofar as you do not award relief as aforesaid, whether in-whole or in-part, and thus require the Town to respond to the Burdens’ 2/22/2026 and repeat 3/5/2026 requests for ARPA records, I ask that you grant the Town a 60-business-day extension to respond thereto.” Based on the information provided in the Town’s petition, quoted above, I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the Town to produce the request without the extension, and efforts undertaken by the Town in fulfilling the current request and previous requests, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Town is granted an extension of 30 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). 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).

Adam J. Costa, Esq. SPR26/0820 Page 5 March 16, 2026 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Town requests to assess fees in excess of $25.00 per hour. In support of its request, the Town provides a chart listing numerous Town employees, their hourly rates, and the tasks they will perform in order to search for the responsive records. Based on the information provided in its petition, I find the Town has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Adam J. Costa, Esq. SPR26/0820 Page 6 March 16, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. This office encourages the Burdens and the Town to continue to communicate directly 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 to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Town must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, the Burdens have the right to seek judicial review of this decision by 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: George and Jennifer Burden