Sharkey, Kyle v. Canton, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20261339)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 23, 2026 SPR26/1339; SPR26/1340; SPR26/1341 Tracy Kenney Town Clerk Town of Canton 801 Washington Street, 1st Floor Canton, MA 02021 Dear Ms. Kenney: I have received three petitions of Kyle Sharkey appealing the response of the Town of Canton (Town) to multiple requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Between March 27, 2026 and April 2, 2026, Mr. Sharkey requested the following: SPR26/1339 All correspondence sent to or from [an identified individual] regarding [an identified individual], including but not limited to the case styled as Commonwealth v. Karen Read, Read Norfolk County Docket #2282CR00117, Canton Police Department Ref 22-87-OF from January 29, 2022 through February 4, 2022. The Town identified this request as Item 4. SPR26/1340 Any and all email correspondence including attachments from [an identified individual] from January 1, 2020 through January 29, 2022. The Town identified this request as Item 1. SPR26/1341 All correspondence sent to or from [an identified individual] regarding [an identified individual], including but not limited to the case styled as 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

Tracy Kenney SPR26/1339; SPR26/1340; SPR26/1341 Page 2 April 23, 2026 Commonwealth v. Karen Read, Read Norfolk County Docket #2282CR00117, Canton Police Department Ref 22-87-OF from January 29, 2022 through February 4, 2022. The Town identified this request as Item 3. The Town responded on April 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Sharkey petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR26/1339, SPR26/1340, and SPR26/1341, were 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. 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

Tracy Kenney SPR26/1339; SPR26/1340; SPR26/1341 Page 3 April 23, 2026 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 Town’s April 10th Response In its April 10, 2026 response, the Town provided a fee estimate of $6,825.00 to provide records responsive to Items 1, 3, and 4, as well as to an additional request identified as Item 2. The Town also responded to a further request identified as Item 5, stating that it possesses no records responsive to that request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Sharkey requested a fee waiver and argued: As this is now becoming evident as a tactic from the Town of Canton combining requests that were sent over a longer period of time and making it merely impossible to narrow scope, how many emails are per each separate email address included among other items. The responses are clearly a way to evade the public’s right to transparency… Pending 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 at issue in Mr. Sharkey’s request, is active and ongoing in the Plymouth Superior Court. See Paul O’Keefe Individually and Personal Rep. of the Estate of John Joseph O’Keefe III, et al. vs. C&C Hospitality, LLC d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s et al., (Plymouth Superior Court, Docket No. 2483-CV-00692). In light of the pending matter, 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).

Tracy Kenney SPR26/1339; SPR26/1340; SPR26/1341 Page 4 April 23, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kyle Sharkey