Pelopida, Jason v. Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (SPR 20261007)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1007 Raquel Loayza Paralegal Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources 225 Turnpike Road, 3rd Floor Southborough, MA 01772 Dear Ms. Loayza: I have received the petition of Jason Pelopida appealing the response of the Department of Agricultural Resources (Department/MDAR) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 15, 2025, Mr. Pelopida requested, “Certificates of Veterinary Inspection, documented complaints, and store inspection reports for some of these same pet shops, specifically [four identified entities] for 2024 and 2025. I’m also requesting these records for [an identified entity].” The Department responded on December 29, 2025, providing an initial fee estimate. Subsequently, the Department provided responses on January 22, 2026, February 2, 2026, and provided a fee estimate on February 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Pelopida petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1007, was opened as a result. Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting 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

Raquel Loayza SPR26/1007 Page 2 April 2, 2026 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Department’s Responses In its December 29, 2025 response, the Department provided a fee estimate of $500.00 and stated the following: We are providing you with a good faith estimate for the cost of your request as follows. We estimate the total hours for your request above to be 24 hours at $25.00 per hour, resulting in a total of $600.00. In accordance with public records law, the first 4 hours of the search and segregation time for public records is at no charge. Less 4 hours at $25.00 per hour, this would result in a final estimated cost of $500.00 for 20 hours at $25.00 per hour. Please note that the estimated hours are based on the volume of records that MDAR staff must search through and review in order to determine which records are responsive. Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) records are received by MDAR in differing formats. The complete process for search and segregation of records therefore varies and depends on each format and how many CVIs are received per format. For example, there are CVIs that have been scanned and sent to MDAR but which will need to be converted into a .pdf format to be produced properly. Some of the CVIs that are in an electronic format are not “readable,” and therefore will have to be searched manually and separately for responsive information. Such files also cannot be combined into one .pdf containing them all and so these files will have to be individually processed as separate files. Some of the CVIs were received by MDAR in a paper format and will need to be processed accordingly. The remainder of the CVIs were sent electronically to MDAR in a different format from the previously mentioned electronic files and will first need to be converted into an Excel format to be able to view the records before processing for production can occur. Please let me know if you would like to proceed with your current request or if you would like to narrow any portions of your request in an attempt to lower the cost of your request. In a December 29, 2025 email to the Department, Mr. Pelopida stated, “I have a couple of questions before I decide how to move forward: Did the MDAR change its policy over the last few years with respect to fees? When I made requests for 2-years worth (2019 & 2020) of these documents in 2020, there was no fee. Is electronic payment possible?”

Raquel Loayza SPR26/1007 Page 3 April 2, 2026 In a January email exchange between the Department and Mr. Pelopida, Mr. Pelopida reiterated his December 29, 2025 request for clarification. The Department stated, “[w]e have been providing estimates for CVI related requests since [the RAO] ha[s] been with MDAR.” Additionally, the Department informed Mr. Pelopida that, “payment cannot be made electronically and check would need to be sent.” In a February 3, 2026 email to the Department, Mr. Pelopida narrowed his request to seek, “records from 2025 only.” In its February 17, 2026 response, the Department provided a fee estimate of $250.00 and stated the following: We are providing you with a good faith estimate for the cost of your request as follows. We estimate the total hours for your request above to be 14 hours at $25.00 per hour, resulting in a total of $350.00. In accordance with public records law, the first 4 hours of the search and segregation time for public records is at no charge. Less 4 hours at $25.00 per hour, this would result in a final estimated cost of $250.00 for 20 hours at $25.00 per hour. Please note that the estimated hours are based on the volume of records that MDAR staff must search through and review in order to determine which records are responsive. Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) records are received by MDAR in differing formats. The complete process for search and segregation of records therefore varies and depends on each format and how many CVIs are received per format. For example, there are CVIs that have been scanned and sent to MDAR but which will need to be converted into a .pdf format to be produced properly. Some of the CVIs that are in an electronic format are not “readable,” and therefore will have to be searched manually and separately for responsive information. Such files also cannot be combined into one .pdf containing them all and so these files will have to be individually processed as separate files. Some of the CVIs were received by MDAR in a paper format and will need to be processed accordingly. The remainder of the CVIs were sent electronically to MDAR in a different format from the previously mentioned electronic files and will first need to be converted into an Excel format to be able to view the records before processing for production can occur. Please let me know if you would like to proceed with your current request or if you would like to narrow any portions of your request in an attempt to lower the cost of your request. In a February 19, 2026 email to the Department, Mr. Pelopida stated, “I’d like to move forward with this request. What are the next steps and should I write anything specific on the check that references this request?”

Raquel Loayza SPR26/1007 Page 4 April 2, 2026 Current Appeal In his March 7, 2026 petition to this office, Mr. Pelopida objected to the Town’s fee estimates, stating the following: I respectfully request that your office: [1] Review MDAR’s fee in light of its obligations under the Public Records Law and determine whether MDAR’s failure to respond to my communications constitutes an effective denial or violation of the Public Records Law; [2] Order MDAR to provide prompt replies to my questions and a clear timeline for productions; and [3] Waive the fee due to MDAR’s failure to timely and reasonably respond after its initial letter. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assess for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under [G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)].” Where Mr. Pelopida submitted his request on December 15, 2025 and the Department provided its initial response and good faith fee estimate on December 29, 2025, I find the Department complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) by providing a timely response to Mr. Pelopida’s request. Accordingly, I find this portion of Mr. Pelopida’s appeal is resolved. Where the Department provided a response within 10 business days, however, it is necessary to review the reasonableness of the Department’s fee estimate.

Raquel Loayza SPR26/1007 Page 5 April 2, 2026 Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department has estimated that it the requires 14 hours to produce the records, it is unclear from the Department’s estimate how much time is allocated to the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing the responsive records versus how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. Additionally, the Department has not indicated the number of responsive records nor the time needed for each record. Accordingly, the Department must provide further details regarding the tasks involved and what each task entails, including the time it is allocating to searching for, segregating, and redacting the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Further, the Department is advised, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). Consequently, if the Department intends to segregate and/redact the records, it must clarify whether the redactions are required by law, and state the applicable statutes, if any. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $250.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Pelopida and the Department to communicate further in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. No Duty to Answer Questions Mr. Pelopida is advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Where Mr. Pelopida asked the Department a question on December 29, 2026, I find the Department has no duty under the Public Records Law to answer such question. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Pelopida with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its

Raquel Loayza SPR26/1007 Page 6 April 2, 2026 Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Pelopida may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jason Pelopida