Sharkey, Kyle v. Canton, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20261150)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2026 SPR26/1150 Tracey Kenney Records Access Officer Town of Canton 801 Washington Street, 1st Floor Canton, MA 02021 Dear Ms. Kenney: I have received the petition of Kyle Sharkey appealing the response of the Town of Canton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 8, 2026, in eight separate public records requests, Mr. Sharkey requested, “. . . [all] sent or received Email correspondence including any attachments. . . . Norfolk County Docket #2282CR00117[.] Canton Police Department Ref: 22-87-OF[.]” Each of Mr. Sharkey’s eight requests specified different email addresses and time periods. The Town responded on March 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Sharkey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1150, was opened as a result. 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. 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

Tracey Kenney SPR26/1150 Page 2 April 9, 2026 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 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 Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Sharkey contends, “[1] I formally Appeal this response and request a waiver of fees[.] . . . [2] Direct the Town of Canton for a Clarification for how many emails there are per each request.” The Town’s March 23rd Fee Estimate In its March 23, 2026 response, the Town assessed a fee estimate of $2,150 and provided the following information: Accordingly, a fee will be assessed for the costs for the time associated with searching for, compiling, segregating, reproducing and redacting the requested records as required by law. See G.L. c. 66 §10(d)(iii). The Town’s preliminary analysis had determined that there are over 1,020 emails responsive to your request. The Town estimates that it will take, at a minimum, eighty-eight (88) hours to search for, compile, segregate, reproduce and redact the requested records as required by law, inclusive of the time already dedicated to searching for and compiling the requested records. As the Town is a municipality with a

Tracey Kenney SPR26/1150 Page 3 April 9, 2026 population in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) people, a fee will not be imposed for the first two (2) hours dedicated to your request. Based on the Town’s good faith estimate, a fee of four [sic] two thousand one hundred fifty ($2,150.00) dollars will be required which is based on an estimated eighty-six (86) hours at $25.00 an hour to complete your request(s). Please be advised that the actual cost and fee of producing the records may vary upon preparation of such record(s). Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Sharkey’s appeal, is active and ongoing in Plymouth County Superior Court. See Paul O’Keefe Individually and Personal Rep of the Estate of John Joseph O’Keefe III et al v. C&C Hospitality, LLC d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s et al, (Plymouth County Docket No. 2483CV00692). In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Sharkey