Pineiro, Hector v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260846)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2026 SPR26/0846 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: On March 10, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a public records request. 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Hector E. Pinerio, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 27, 2026, Attorney Pinerio requested multiple categories of records relating to identified city employees. 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 municipality; and 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0846 Page 2 March 17, 2026 (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 City requests “an extension of thirty business days…” In support of its request the City provides the following information: The City estimates that there are approximately 550 pages of responsive records to the categories of the request noted above. The competition of this request will involve the review and redaction of all of the responsive records to protect exempt information. As noted in the petition to assess fees the City expects redactions to be made pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law. In the time span since this request was received the City has received 510 public records requests. It is likely that a substantial portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the City’s Law Department. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0846 Page 3 March 17, 2026 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the City argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (d): The City must review for redactions under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law as the Excel tracking file sought by item 1 contains copies of numerous public records requests filed with the City. Often when placing a public records request, a requestor will share deeply personal circumstances which led to the

Michael Manning SPR26/0846 Page 4 March 17, 2026 request being placed including matters which would be considered intimate details of a highly personal nature such details may include being the victim of a crime, marital status, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Accordingly, the City must review item one for redactions under the second clause Exemption (c). With regards to the remaining items sought, the City anticipates that within the correspondence responsive to items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, may contain information useful in making employment decisions as defined in Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000) as these communications appear to be between a former employee and those who hold supervisory roles with the City’s Law Department. The City also anticipates the responsive records may require review and redaction in accordance with the attorney work product doctrine as it operates through Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. This request seeks numerous records and correspondences that originated from the City’s Law Department. It is my understanding that some of the records responsive to this request may have been prepared in anticipation of litigation by the City and therefore would fall within the scope of Exemption (d). In light of City’s petition, I find that the City 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 City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Fees in Excess of $25 per Hour In its petition, the City requests permission “to assess the hourly rate of its Record Access Officer (RAO) to review responsive records that require redaction pursuant to the attorney client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.” In support of its request, the City provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: The City requests to assess the hourly rate of its Records Access Officer (RAO) to review responsive records that require redaction pursuant to the attorney client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The City’s RAO makes $43.00 per hour. The Records Access Officer is the lowest paid individual capable of undertaking the complex legal review required to segregate and redact documents which may be contemplated under the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. The RAO has received specialized training in this and prior roles to complete complex responses to public records requests that would otherwise require a higher paid individual to complete. If the City were to allow an employee without significant experience and understanding of the attorney client privilege and attorney work product doctrine to complete these tasks, the City would incur a risk of the sanctity of the protection of the attorney client privilege and any associated work product to be pierced via public records request. The City will not assess a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour for other tasks. . . .

Michael Manning SPR26/0846 Page 5 March 17, 2026 In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, 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). In light of the factors in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), I find the City may assess a fee limited to $43.00 per hour for legal review. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. The City may also assess a fee limited to $43.00 per hour for legal review. The City may not assess a fee over 25$ per hour for other tasks. Please note, Attorney Pinerio has 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: Hector E. Pinerio, Esq.