Sundin, Wilson v. New Salem, Town of (SPR 20261289)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 22, 2026 SPR26/1289 Emily Hill Town Coordinator Town of New Salem 19 S. Main Street New Salem, MA 01355 Dear Ms. Hill: I have received the petition of Wilson Sundin appealing the response of the Town of New Salem (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, Mr. Sundin requested the following records concerning an identified employee of the Town of New Salem Police Department from the period “between January 1, 2023 and March 03, 2026[:]” [1] Any records reflecting final disciplinary action imposed upon [an identified] Officer/Sgt. . . . including investigative findings, notices of discipline, suspension records, termination documentation, or other final disciplinary determinations[;] [3] Any communications between the New Salem Police Department and the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission concerning [an identified] Officer/Sgt. . . . including required notifications, reports, certification matters, or final determinations[;] [3] Any complaints filed against [an identified] Officer/Sgt. . . . including records reflecting the general nature of the allegation, investigative findings, and final disposition or outcome[;] [4] Text messages, emails, or other written electronic communications between [an identified] Officer/Sgt. . . . and [an identified] Chief . . . created, sent, or received using municipally owned or municipally issued devices or accounts, limited to communications that reference: (a) complaints against [an identified] Officer/Sgt. . . .; (b) disciplinary matters; or (c) POST reporting or certification issues. 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

Emily Hill SPR26/1289 Page 2 April 22, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0951 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 31, 2026). In my March 31st determination, I found that the Town must revise its fee estimate of $175.00 or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is consistent with the Public Records Law. The Town responded on April 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. Sundin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1289, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Emily Hill SPR26/1289 Page 3 April 22, 2026 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 under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Town’s April 3rd Response In its previous March 16, 2026 response, the Town indicated that it “will require 25 business days to respond to [Mr. Sundin’s] request, as the magnitude of [the] request unduly burdens the other responsivities of the Town.” The Town additionally provided a fee estimate of $175.00 “to comply with [the] request” and indicated that its estimate includes “the initial 2 hours of time devoted to complying with [the] request in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(m)[.]” The Town additionally stated that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. In its April 3, 2026 response, the Town provided further explanation regarding the portion of its previous March 16, 2026 response in which it stated that it would “require 25 business days to respond to [Mr. Sundin’s] request[:]” In its initial response . . . the Town stated that it would require 25 business days to respond to your request, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 66, Section 10(b)(vi). . . . In addition, the Town notes that New Salem is one of the smallest municipalities in the Commonwealth, population 983, and has very few employees. The Town does not have the resources nor the volume of records requests to designate an employee to handle records requests as a primary job duty. The employees able to work on your request already handle multiple functions, in excess of the duties performed by comparable officials in other communities. With the Town’s annual town meeting approaching and the busy budget season underway, these employees are already working beyond their usual hours to handle workloads – without the burdens associated with records requests. Given the scope of your request and the current workloads of the Town employees capable of fullfilling [sic] your request, 10 business days is not enough time for the Town to respond. Further, the Town provided the following additional information in support of its $175.00 fee estimate: The Town’s initial response to your request provided a good faith estimate for search and segregation time. The Town’s good faith estimate stated that the time was for “search and segregation” and did not state that any of the time associated with the estimate was for redactions. While it is possible that some exemptions may apply to the responsive records, that will not be known until you pay the good faith estimate and the Town resumes work on your request. Further information on the good faith estimate is as follows: Town Coordinator: 3 hours at $25.00 per hour, subtotal $75.00.

Emily Hill SPR26/1289 Page 4 April 22, 2026  Review of digital and physical records from January 1, 2023 to March 3, 2026 within the scope of the request for responsiveness, including 14,850 emails, multiple sets of meeting minutes (physical and digital), and hundreds of digital files. Chief of Police: 1 hour at $25.00 per hour, subtotal $25.00.  Searching for and compiling all texts and emails between Brooks and the Chief, searching for and compiling POST communications and all complaints in both digital and physical records. Police Sergeant: 3 hours at $25.00 per hour, subtotal $75.00.  Searching for all body camera footage related to complaints and allegations and creating copies of responsive footage. . . . Current Appeal In his April 8, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Sundin objects to the portion of the Town’s response in which the Town explains why it stated in its previous March 16, 2026 response that it needed additional time to respond to his request. He additionally objects to the Town’s fee estimate and the Town’s “[failure] . . . to address the requester’s explicit request for a fee waiver[.]” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi); Fee Waivers As noted in the previous determination, where the Town has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, I find that the portion of Mr. Sundin’s appeal in which he objects to the portion of the Town’s response indicates it needs additional time to respond to his request is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein). Additionally, as noted in the previous determination, 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.

Emily Hill SPR26/1289 Page 5 April 22, 2026 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) (emphasis added). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Town has estimated that the process to compile the responsive records will take 7 hours of employee time, it is not clear from the Town’s estimate how much of this time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation of the records. Further, although the Town states it possesses 14,850 responsive emails, it is uncertain how many minutes per page the Town requires to segregate the responsive emails. Additionally, where the Town states that it possess “multiple sets of meeting minutes (physical and digital), and hundreds of digital files[,]” “texts[,]” “POST communications and . . . complaints[,]” and “body camera footage” responsive to the request, it is uncertain how many non-email records there are in addition to the 14,850 responsive emails the Town identified in its April 3rd response, and the number of minutes per page the Town must spend to segregate the non-email records. The Town must clarify these matters. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). The Town additionally states in its April 3rd response that it will charge a fee for “creating copies of . . . footage” responsive to Mr. Sundin’s request. However, it is unclear how the Town may assess a fee for “creating copies of . . . footage” under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). The Town must provide additional information explaining how this task constitutes time to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce records and how it is chargeable under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Town must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $175.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). I additionally encourage the parties to continue to communicate directly to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Sundin with a response to his 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.

Emily Hill SPR26/1289 Page 6 April 22, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Wilson Sundin