Weeks, Christopher v. Ashland, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261056)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/1056 Janice Neitz Records Supervisor Ashland Police Department 137 Main Street Ashland, MA 01721 Dear Ms. Neitz: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the Ashland Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 5, 2026, Mr. Weeks requested “records for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2026” pertaining to himself. Specifically, Mr. Weeks sought: [1] Complete incident reports, narratives, CAD logs, arrest reports, booking records, body-worn camera footage, cruiser video, and any attached evidence for the incidents listed below (including all attachments and supplements):  Report dated 07/25/2024 (Entry ID 50) – incident described as Sept 5 boundary dispute on Rodman Rd; author [an identified officer].  Reports dated 11/13/2023 (Entry ID 59) – incidents on Oct 10, 2023 (approx 5:29 PM and 8:17 PM) authored by [two identified officers] (Market Basket / no-trespass).  Report entered 12/12/2023 @ 11:06 (Ref 23-861-OF, Entry ID 69) – harassment prevention order violation; author [an identified officer] (#69).  Report entered 12/19/2023 (Ref 23-103-AR, Entry ID 65) – incident Dec 18, 2023 @ ~21:05; author an identified officer] (arrest at …Rodman Rd).  Report page dated 08/22/2022 – Market Basket service dog disturbance; author [an identified officer] (67).  Report page dated 08/22/2023 / Entered 09/28/2022 (Entry ID 32) – …Discount / …Pond St unwanted person; author [an identified officer]. 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

Janice Neitz SPR26/1056 Page 2 March 31, 2026 [2] All No Trespass orders, Harassment Prevention Orders, and copies of any served orders related to the above incidents (including service logs and proof of service). [3] All photographs, video, and audio (store surveillance, cruiser dashcam, body- worn camera, and any recordings) that depict or reference the above incidents or that were used to identify parties in those incidents. [4] All investigative files, supplemental reports, witness statements, interview recordings/transcripts, evidence logs, and chain-of-custody records related to the above incidents. [5] All communications (emails, text messages, memos, meeting notes) between or among the following persons or offices that reference [an identified individual or the above incidents, for the period 2021–2026:  [Two identified individuals];  Ashland Police Department and [an identified individual];  Ashland Police Department and Animal Control (including animal control complaints, reports, and follow-up communications) regarding the incidents above or regarding [an identified individual]. [6] Any internal affairs, disciplinary, or complaint files opened in connection with the above incidents, including outcomes and final dispositions. [7] Any warrant applications, arrest warrants, search warrants, and supporting affidavits related to the Dec 18, 2023 arrest or any other arrest of [an identified individual] during 2021–2026. The Department responded on March 10, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1056, 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,

Janice Neitz SPR26/1056 Page 3 March 31, 2026 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). The Department’s March 10th Response In its March 10, 2026 response, the Department assessed a fee of $75.00 to produce the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the Department stated: As the Town is a municipality with a population less than twenty thousand (20,000) people, a fee will be assessed for the costs for the time associated with time spent searching for, compiling, reproducing and, if necessary, redacting the requested records as required by law. See G.L. c. 66 §10(d)(iii). There are numerous records that must be searched, compiled, analyzed, and potentially redacted in accordance with the law. Based on the Town’s good faith estimate, a fee of seventy-five ($75.00) dollars will be required which is based on an estimated time of three (3) hours at $25.00 an hour to complete your request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Weeks argued, “[t]he custodian’s generalized estimate of three hours and $75 is not a sufficient, itemized justification for withholding or conditioning production when identical records were previously released to a third party.” 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 assessed 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).

Janice Neitz SPR26/1056 Page 4 March 31, 2026 Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department states that it would take 3 hours to produce the responsive records, it is unclear why the Department requires this much time. The Department must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Additionally, if redactions are required, I find the Department must provide information about whether the responsive records contain information that is required by law to be segregated or redacted, as well as the applicable statutes, if any. Further, it is uncertain how many pages of responsive records exist and how many minutes per page the Department requires to segregate or redact the records. The Department’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation that the rate of $25 per hour is the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s). Accordingly, the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the Department must also clarify whether its fee estimate includes time for segregation or redaction not required by law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $75.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Weeks and the Department to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Weeks may wish to narrow 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Weeks with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its 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. Weeks may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Janice Neitz SPR26/1056 Page 5 March 31, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks