Crevier, Daniel v. Amesbury, City of (SPR 20261403)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1403 Jennifer E. Smith City Clerk City of Amesbury 1 Market Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Smith: I have received the petition of Daniel Crevier, of New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc., appealing the response of the City of Amesbury (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 8, 2026, Mr. Crevier requested the following: 1. Copies of all current employment agreements, contracts, or compensation plans applicable to non-union City personnel. 2. Copies of all current personnel by-laws, ordinances, and/or City Charter provisions governing non-union personnel. 3. A comprehensive list of all non-union City personnel, including for each individual: - Position/title - Current annual salary - Any cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) - Any salary adjustments or modifications for FY25, FY26, and FY27 (if applicable) 4. The total cost and percentage increase associated with funding the 2025–2028 Memorandum of Agreement for Amesbury DPW, AFSCME Council 93, Local 939, including: - The percentage increase reflected in Bill 2025-0114 ($110,904 for FY26) - The projected cost and percentage increases for FY27 and FY28 5. The total cost and percentage increase associated with funding the 2025–2028 Memorandum of Agreement for Amesbury Firefighters Local 1783, IAFF, including: - The percentage increase reflected in Bill 2025-0125 ($201,710.49 for FY26). 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

Jennifer E. Smith SPR26/1403 Page 2 April 28, 2026 - The projected cost and percentage increases for FY27 and FY28. - The total budgetary impact associated with the addition of Captain positions. 6. The total cost and percentage increase associated with funding the 2025–2028 Memorandum of Agreement for OPEIU Local 6, including: - The percentage increase reflected in Bill 2025-0126 ($120,415.38 for FY26) - The projected cost and percentage increases for FY27 and FY28[.] The City responded on April 13, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. Crevier petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1403, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Crevier’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. Fee Estimates - Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

Jennifer E. Smith SPR26/1403 Page 3 April 28, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Crevier argues the following: The information sought is directly relevant and necessary to ongoing negotiations. Specifically, I have repeatedly asked the City to identify the overall percentage increases negotiated by other unions over their respective three-year agreements. The City has represented that it does not have this information. My request is narrowly tailored to obtain the underlying data needed to calculate and verify those increases, including for both union and non-union personnel, in order to evaluate the City’s position regarding its asserted financial limitations. Given the clear nexus between the requested records and active collective bargaining, as well as the public interest in transparency and informed negotiations, I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Records order the City to provide the requested information without cost. Fee Waivers 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. Mr. Crevier is advised, 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). The City’s April 13th Response In its April 13, 2026 response, the City gives a total fee estimate $3,750.00, and provides the following information: Whenever it is estimated that the cost for complying with a public records request will exceed ten dollars, a custodian must provide the requester with a good-faith written estimate prior to complying with the request. 950 CMR 32.06(2). It is estimated that in this case it will take one hundred and fifty (150) hours to locate and review the requested records, with the average hourly rate of the lowest paid

Jennifer E. Smith SPR26/1403 Page 4 April 28, 2026 employee capable of performing such work, with the average hourly rate of the lowest paid employee capable of performing such work of $ 25.00. 950 CMR 32.03. It is therefore estimated that the total cost to provide copies of responsive records will be $3,750.00 (950 CMR 32.06(2)). Upon receipt of a check made out to the City of Amesbury in that amount, I will direct that such work be performed. Should the cost of complying with your request exceed the estimated amount, the City Clerk’s Office will provide you with an additional estimate of the cost to complete its response to your request. Please be aware that the amount of the above estimate is directly related to the broad scope of your request for records. Accordingly, should you wish to narrow the scope of your request, the [public agency] will provide you with a revised estimate. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production.

Jennifer E. Smith SPR26/1403 Page 5 April 28, 2026 Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. Crevier and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Crevier may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request that would assist Mr. Crevier in obtaining the desired information. 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). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Crevier and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Crevier may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Daniel Crevier