Friedman, Alexander v. Department of Conservation and Recreation (SPR 20261462)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1462 Michael Tencellent Paralegal Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 6620 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Mr. Tencellent: On April 17, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (Department) 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Alexander Friedman. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 9, 2026, Mr. Friedman requested the following: [1] All documentation concerning Peddocks’ Island Cottage #35 (including, without limitation, all communications and correspondences to and from each owner, co-permittee, and claimed owners/copermittees (including all communications on behalf of such owners and co-permittees, whether by an agent, successor or assign)[;] [2] All permits submitted to Department of Conservation and Recreation for approval concerning Peddocks Island Cottage #35 since 1990 (irrespective of DCR approval)[;] [3] All insurance records concerning Peddocks Island Cottage #35 since 1990[;] [4] All permit fee payment records concerning Peddocks Island Cottage #35 since 1990[;] [5] All evidence purporting to support Department of Conservation and Recreation’s claim that the owners/permittees of Peddocks Island Cottage #35 have committed material breach or default of permit conditions as cited in the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s January 28, 2026 “Vacate 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

Michael Tencellent SPR26/1462 Page 2 April 27, 2026 Notice”[;] [6] All other records in the possession of the Department of Conservation and Recreation in any way pertaining to Peddocks Island Cottage #35.” Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency 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. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency 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; 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. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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

Michael Tencellent SPR26/1462 Page 3 April 27, 2026 search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. Current Petition In its petition, the Department requests “approval to assess a fee…” In support of its petition, the Department provides the following information: As detailed in the attached letter, which is incorporated by reference into this fee petition, DCR has conducted a search for responsive records, identified approximately 900 responsive documents and conducted a preliminary review of those documents. DCR provided the requestor with a good faith estimate of $675.00. The basis of that estimate is set forth in the attached letter to Mr. Friedman. As noted in that letter, segregation and redaction of these records is required by law. The Supervisor should also exercise her discretion in approving this fee. DCR has an obligation to ensure that proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. This requires careful review and segregation of records before they are produced to a requestor. Segregation and redaction of messages often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single message. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or the time of disclosure. The fee estimates provided are for the segregation and redaction process as a whole, and in the view of undersigned counsel, cannot be split up by exemption. Since much of the segregation and redaction process is required by law, DCR is entitled to charge a fee for the cost of production and does not view this petition as a necessary prerequisite to charging a fee to the requestor and has communicated its fee estimate to the requestor appropriately. I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. Consequently, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. Please note, however, this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. Conclusion I find the Department has not met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without segregation or redaction. Please note, however, this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. Further, this office encourages Mr. Friedman and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, §

Michael Tencellent SPR26/1462 Page 4 April 27, 2026 10(b)(vii)(a municipality or agency 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 or agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alexander Friedman