DeLacey, Brian v. Malden, City of (SPR 20260825)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 20, 2026 SPR26/0825 Joanne Perperian Records Access Officer Office of the City Solicitor City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street, Suite 420 Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of Brian DeLacey, of Malden News Network, appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 19, 2026, Mr. DeLacey requested the following: For the timeframe of 9/3/24 … to the date of this request, please provide all records created, received, edited, modified or executed by any City official who is not a member of the City Council, which matter or fall within record categories specifically identified or common known as: 1. “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU), 2. “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA), 3. “Non Disclosure Agreement” (NDA), 4. “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) , 5. “Purchase / Sale Agreement” (P&S), 6. “Settlement Agreement” (including all out-of-court settlements), 7. “Payment in Lieu Of Taxes” (PILOT), 8. “Tax Increment Financing Agreement” (TIF), 9. “Tax Abatement Agreement” (for any amount $100,000 or more), 10. “Development Agreement”, 11. “Special Tax Assessment” (STA) or 12. Any agreement, contract or promise entered into by any City officials with any representative or owner of any private, commercial, corporate or trust-owned property in the City Of Malden. As important, formal, municipal government documents, these are expected to 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

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0825 Page 2 March 20, 2026 well organized, easily identified, readily available and date-stamped with associated metadata and other information. Please include any marked-up, edited, revised, red-lined, annotated, commented, notarized or other versions (including the terminal document, as a final version). Please include copies of executed (e.g. signed, initial’d, notarized) copies, and any correspondence (email etc) declining to sign, or withdrawing from consideration any such proposed business agreement. This request seeks records including, but not limited to, the Malden Community Fund. I understand the City assigned reference number 2026-0087 to this request. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the City. See SPR26/0787 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 12, 2026). In my March 12th determination, I granted the City an extension of 30 business days, and found that the City may assess fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records. Concurrent with its fee petition, the City responded to Mr. DeLacey on March 5, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Mr. DeLacey petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0825, 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 ($.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).

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0825 Page 3 March 20, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, among other things, Mr. DeLacey argues the following: The *Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law* is unambiguous: **”An RAO may not recover fees associated with record organization”**. By claiming that thousands of emails must be reviewed and multiple physical and electronic files searched across various departments, the City is effectively seeking to bill me for the “re-organization” of its deficient record-keeping system. . . . I have already narrowed the scope of this request to records specifically “created, received, edited, modified or executed by **Mayor Gary Christenson**”. The Mayor is the sole “contract-signing authority” for these documents. It is unreasonable to suggest that the Office of the Mayor requires **266.65 hours** to locate agreements signed by the Mayor within a narrow timeframe. The City’s RAO has a **statutory mandate under 950 CMR 32.04(5)** to use their **”superior knowledge of the records”** to facilitate production “efficiently and affordably”. Instead, the City has produced an estimate based on a bulk IT search of 7,062 emails, claiming a need for two minutes of review per email for documents that are, by their nature as executed municipal contracts, matters of “strong public interest”. The City’s March 5th Fee Estimate In its March 5, 2026 response, the City provides a total fee estimate of $6,616.25, and provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: In this case, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to segregate and redact the records requested is a salaried employee whose hourly rate exceeds $25 per hour. In accordance with 950 CMR 37.02(2)(m)(1), you will not be charged for the first two (2) hours of those services and will only be charged at a rate of $25 per hour. As previously noted, the Mayor serves as the contract signing authority for the City and routinely signs agreements such as Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), and similar documents as part of normal City operations. Once executed, these agreements are filed along with their supporting documentation within the records maintained by the relevant departments responsible for the subject matter of the contract. Because these records are maintained with their associated departmental files rather than in a single centralized location, responding to your request requires research and review across several City departments. Please see the fee estimate below based upon the responsive records identified by those departments.

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0825 Page 4 March 20, 2026 • The City’s IT Department conducted a search during the timeframe provided using the twelve categories provided in your request: “Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU), Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), Collective Bargaining Agreement, Purchase/Sale Agreement (P&S), Settlement Agreement (including all out-of-court settlements), Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), Tax Increment Financing Agreement (TIF), Tax Abatement Agreement (for any amount $100,000 or more), Development Agreement, Special Tax Assessment (STA) or any agreement, contract or promise entered into by any City officials with any representative or owner of any private, commercial, corporate or trust-owned property in the City Of Malden.” - This search identified approximately 7,062 emails potentially responsive to the request. A sample review determined that it will take an average of two minutes to review and redact each email. - Based on this estimate, the total time required to review and redact emails is approximately 235.4 hours: 7,062 emails × 2 minutes per email = 14,124 minutes ÷ 60 minutes/hour • Records responsive to this request are maintained in both electronic and physical files, some which have been archived. A manual search will be required of all physical files. - Estimated research time to locate electronic files: 17.75 hours - Estimated research time to research and review physical files: 13.50 hours Summary of Estimated Time Hours Research, review and redact emails 235.40 Research and review electronic files 17.75 Research and review physical files 13.50 Total Estimated Time: 266.65 Less the first two hours: -2.00 Total Billable Hours: 264.65 Estimated Cost: 264.65 billable hours x $25/hour = $6,616.25 Should it take less time, the fee will be reduced and refunded. Should it take longer, we will reach out to you before continuing. The records responsive to this request must be reviewed to determine whether any statutory exemptions apply. If exempt information is identified, the City may need to redact portions of the records in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law, including but not limited to Exemptions (a) and (c) under G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) and (c). The City therefore seeks the ability to assess reasonable fees associated with reviewing and redacting responsive records as permitted by law.

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0825 Page 5 March 20, 2026 Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. DeLacey and the City to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. DeLacey may consider further 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 further 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 If outstanding issues remain after Mr. DeLacey and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. DeLacey may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Joanne Perperian SPR26/0825 Page 6 March 20, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian DeLacey