Longobardi, Maureen v. Middlefield, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20260917)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR26/0917 Evan Kenney Town Administrator Town of Middlefield 188 Skyline Trail Middlefield, MA 02143 Dear Mr. Kenney: On March 16, 2026, this office received your petition behalf of the Town of Middlefield (Town) seeking 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestors Mr. and Mrs. Al and Maureen Longobardi. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 1, 2026, Mr. and Mrs. Longobardi requested the following: [1] A stamped copy of the OML complaint/resolution (1 page)[;] [2] Copies of K.P. Law bills pertaining to each OML complaint, including the dated total cost per complaint[;] [3] A copy of the dated K.P. Law bill for the bid protest on the senior center[;] [4] The police report and information regarding the public record reported “missing by the [identified individuals] as referenced by [an identified individual] in the July 16, 2025, Selectboard minutes[;] [5] The police report and information regarding the police station and gun safe keys reported missing by [an identified individual] as referenced by [an identified individual] in the July 16, 2025, Selectboard minutes, which resulted in the re- keying of the Town Hall and the Senior Center ($793.00)[;] [6] ANY and ALL information regarding the old Tahoe Police Cruiser and amount rendered (trade in, resale etc…?)[;] 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

Evan Kenney SPR26/0917 Page 2 March 23, 2026 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). 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).

Evan Kenney SPR26/0917 Page 3 March 23, 2026 Current Petition In its petition, the Town requests, “a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request.” In support of its request, the Town provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: Here, the documents at issue relate to communications between Town Counsel and the Town. As such, the invoices for Town Counsel services must be reviewed and, to the extent they contain privileged information, be redacted. Without an adjustment in the statutory rate, the Town will incur significant financial cost if it is required to pay Town Counsel the full rate of $250.00/hour to respond to this request that may implicate confidential matters. As grounds for this petition, therefore, the Town states that there is good cause for permitting the Town to charge $75.00/hour for Town Counsel services because Town Counsel is the lowest paid employee capable of reviewing responsive records for necessary redactions for attorney-client privilege, attorney-client work product, and other related legal and policy considerations. Accord SPR22/2793 (approving fee estimate where attorney was only employee “with the necessary skill to determine whether the attorney-client privilege requires certain portions of the records…to be redacted” and “whether other exemptions apply”). Additionally, here, the cost estimate has been reduced from the “actual cost” of responding to the request, as Town Counsel’s rate is $250.00/hour but has been reduced to $75.00/hour for purposes of demonstrating that the fee estimate is made in good faith and in an attempt to be reasonable, and is not designed to limit, deter, or otherwise prevent any access to the non-exempt or confidential records, but rather, to partially compensate the Town for the actual costs of complying with the requests. In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Town may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. The Town may not assess a fee of over 25$ per hour for other tasks. Please note, Mr and Mrs. Longobardi 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).

Evan Kenney SPR26/0917 Page 4 March 23, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Al Longobardi Maureen Longobari