Bradley, Adam v. Billerica, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260939)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR25/0939 Sarah Heffernan Police Sergeant/Records Access Officer Billerica Police Department 6 Good Street Billerica, MA 01821 Dear Sergeant Heffernan: On March 19, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Billerica Police Department (Department) seeking permission to waive statutory limits to fees and to charge for time spent segregating or redacting 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, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Adam Bradley. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 2, 2026, Mr. Bradley requested various records relating to an identified investigation.” 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. 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

Sergeant Sarah Heffernan SPR26/0939 Page 2 March 23, 2026 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 Department argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (f), (o), and (n): Exemption (c): The records may contain highly personal or private information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as medical or health-related information. Here, the investigations involved a murder. Sensitive physical and mental health information may be contained in these records. Information about witnesses may also be subject to redaction. Exemption (f): Although the referenced investigations are complete, certain information related to the Department’s investigative efforts may remain protected under this exemption and may still be present in responsive communications. The Department takes this very seriously and cannot risk a release of sensitive process relative investigation efforts.

Sergeant Sarah Heffernan SPR26/0939 Page 3 March 23, 2026 Exemption (n): The records may include information relating to security measures or emergency preparedness. For example, communications identifying the precise locations of security cameras or other sensitive security infrastructure may be contained in the records and may warrant withholding. Exemption (o): The records may contain personal information relating to police officers or other Town employees, which would require redaction prior to disclosure. In light of the Department’s petition, I find that the Department 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 Department may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department is seeking a waiver of statutory limits to charge fees in excess of $25 per hour. The Department provides the following in support of its request: An associate attorney in the Town Counsel’s office is the lowest paid employee with the requisite knowledge for reviewing documents for the attorney-client privilege. After my office has collected the responsive records, an attorney will perform the review, segregation, and redactions necessary for production of the requested documents. An associate charges $260.00 per hour. For those emails and documents that do not involve Town Counsel, the lowest paid person capable of performing this review is the Record Supervisor who is paid an hourly rate of $56.51. The Record Supervisor is authorized to review the protected records and has sufficient knowledge of the laws governing access to these records. That said, given that Town Counsel will already be conducting the review of the documents, the Town will likely ask Town Counsel to perform the segregation or assist on certain records. Although Town Counsel will be performing this review, in whole or in part, the Department is only seeking permission to charge the hourly rate of $40.00 per hour. Based on a timed test, it is anticipated to take 7 minutes to review each email for a total of 1,876 minutes or 31.26 hours. The Department already spent 10 hours searching for the responsive records. This search was performed by the Police Chief. However, the lowest paid employee with the knowledge base and clearance to review these emails, is the Record Supervisor. The Department recognizes that the maximum fee permitted without the Supervisor’s permission is $25 per hour. Accordingly, the Department hereby

Sergeant Sarah Heffernan SPR26/0939 Page 4 March 23, 2026 requests the ability to charge at $40.00 per hour for the search, segregation, and redaction of the potentially responsive records. The hourly rate is still far below what Town Counsel and the Record Supervisor charge per hour. If approved, the maximum the Department is seeking to assess the requestor is $1,570.40, which includes two hours for free ((10 hours for search x $400) + (29.26 hours to review and redact x $40.00)). The fee is not intended to limit, deter, or prevent access to the records, but rather, recover the Department’s costs for reviewing records which it is legally required to review. This fee is also reasonable, as it is significantly less than the actual cost of producing the records. In light of the Department’s petition, I find the Department has partially 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). The Department may assess an hourly rate limited to $40.00 for attorney review for segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege. However, the Department may not assess a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour for other tasks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Department may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Additionally, the Department may assess a fee limited to $40.00 per hour for attorney review. However, the Department may not assess a fee in excess of $25.00 for other tasks. Please note, Mr. Bradley 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: Adam Bradley