Laskowsky, Marie v. Hopkinton, Town of (SPR 20261102)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/1102 Connor B. Degan Town Clerk/Records Access Officer Town of Hopkinton 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Dear Mr. Degan: I have received the petition of Marie Laskowsky appealing the response of the Town of Hopkinton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 12, 2026, Ms. Laskowsky requested the following: [A]ll records, correspondence, communications, letters, emails, memoranda, or documents, sent or received, between any of the following parties and the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (“POST Commission”) . . . during the period January 1, 2025 through the date of this request: [1] The Town of Hopkinton, in any official capacity; [2] [An identified] Town Manager . . .; [3] Town Counsel, including Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC and any predecessor town counsel firm acting on behalf of the Town during the stated period; [4] [An identified] Chief . . . of the Hopkinton Police Department, in his official capacity. This request includes but is not limited to: any acknowledgment of contact from POST; any correspondence concerning a referral, inquiry, or complaint involving Hopkinton Police Department personnel; any communications concerning [an identified] [Chief’s] . . . POST certification; and any communications concerning the Town’s response to any POST inquiry, referral, or request for information. The Town provided a response on March 25, 2026, which included a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, and objecting to the fees, Ms. Laskowsky petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1102, was opened as a result. 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

Connor B. Degan SPR26/1102 Page 2 April 7, 2026 The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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 (two) 2 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 how 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 Town’s March 25th Response In its March 25, 2026 response, the Town provided a fee estimate of $1,000.00 and stated the following:

Connor B. Degan SPR26/1102 Page 3 April 7, 2026 As [the] request stands, the lowest paid Town employee capable of searching for, compiling, segregating, redacting, and/or reproducing the responsive records is paid at a rate of $25.00 per hour. The Town’s good faith estimate of the time required to comply with your request is 40 hours, which includes Police Department and IT Department employees searching for, compiling, segregating, redacting, and/or reproducing the responsive records. At the cost of $25.00 per hour, this amounts to $1,000.00. Please note that you must pay the cost of complying with your request before the Town produces the records. . . . Current Appeal In her March 26, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Laskowsky notes that the Town’s fee estimate “was authored and signed by” a representative of an outside law firm that serves as the Town’s counsel, and objects where “[n]o independent records access officer reviewed the request.” She also claims that the Town’s fee estimate “appears designed to function as a barrier to access[.]” Ms. Laskowsky additionally asserts that the Town “requires full prepayment of $1,000.00 before any search is conducted” and contends, “G.L. c. 66, §10(d) . . . does not permit the use of a fee estimate as a precondition that effectively denies access.” In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where the Town provided Ms. Laskowsky with a fee estimate in response to her request on March 25th, and she objects on the basis that the Town’s fee estimate “was authored and signed by” a representative of an outside law firm that serves as the Town’s counsel, she has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the City. As such, I find that the portion of her appeal as it relates to who “authored and signed” the Town’s fee estimate is unclear. Ms. Laskowsky is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Further, under the Public Records Law, “[a] records access officer . . . shall at reasonable times and without unreasonable delay permit inspection or furnish a copy of any public record as defined in clause twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4, or any segregable portion of a public record, not later than 10 business days following the receipt of the request, provided that: . . . (iii) the records access officer receives payment of a reasonable fee as set forth in subsection (d).” G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(iii) (emphasis added). Where Ms. Laskowsky claims that the Town “requires full prepayment of $1,000.00 before any search is conducted[,]” she has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the Town. Consequently, the portion of her appeal regarding the Town’s “prepayment” requirement “before any search is conducted” is unclear. Reasonableness of Fee Estimate Although the Town indicates in its fee estimate that it will take 40 hours total to produce the responsive records, it is unclear from the Town’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. It is also unclear how many records there are, or the number or minutes that the Town must spend on

Connor B. Degan SPR26/1102 Page 4 April 7, 2026 redactions for each record. The Town must provide further details regarding the tasks involved and what each task entails, including the time it is allocating to compiling, segregating, redacting and reproducing the requested records. Accordingly, the Town must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). The Town additionally indicates that its “good faith estimate of the time required to comply with [the] request . . . includes” segregation and/or redaction of the responsive records. Please note that, 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). I am not aware that the Town has submitted a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As such, the Town 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, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two (2) 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). It is unclear whether the Town is assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time in responding to the request. The Town must clarify these matters. For the reasons discussed above, I find the Town must either revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Further, this office encourages Ms. Laskowsky and the Town to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Laskowsky may wish narrow her 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 Town is ordered to provide Ms. Laskowsky with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 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.

Connor B. Degan SPR26/1102 Page 5 April 7, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Marie Laskowsky Alexander M. Castro, Esq.