Sullivan, Tracy v. Bourne, Town of (SPR 20261109)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/1109 Barry H. Johnson Town Clerk Town of Bourne 24 Perry Avenue Bourne, MA 02532 Dear Mr. Johnson: On March 26, 2026, this office received the petition of Emily A. Meehan, of Harrington Heep, on behalf of the Town of Bourne, (Town) seeking permission 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Tracey Sullivan. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 17, 2026, Ms. Sullivan requested, “…records concerning the Bourne Veterans Memorial Community Center[.]” 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

Barry H. Johnson SPR26/1109 Page 2 March 31, 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). Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Town argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (d): The records may also contain information that is prohibited from release by other exemptions to the Public Records Law. For example, communications involving the identified employees may contain information that is prohibited from release by one of more statutes, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or G. L. c. 93H, and would be withheld under Exemption (a). Additionally, these communications are likely to contain information that is protected by Exemption (c). The records may contain personnel information, personal information pertaining to employees or private citizens, personal email addresses and phone numbers, or other intimate personal details unrelated to public business. This information can be withheld and redacted under Exemption (c) if the public interest in the disclosure of such information does not outweigh the privacy interests. See Guide, page 19.

Barry H. Johnson SPR26/1109 Page 3 March 31, 2026 Records may also be protected by Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. Several of the identified employees are heavily involved in policy development in the Town. It is likely that some of the records contain communications relating to policy development. Release of this information could taint the deliberative process if prematurely disclosed. In light of the Town’s petition, I find that the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Town to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Sullivan 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: Tracey Sullivan