Best-Kind, Kendall v. Harwich, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261463)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1463 Julie Judge Records Specialist Harwich Police Department 183 Sisson Road Harwich, MA 02645 Dear Ms. Judge: I have received the petition of Kendall Best-Kind appealing the response of the Harwich Police Department (Department) to multiple requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 20, 2025, Ms. Best-Kind requested, “all records in the possession, custody, or control of the Harwich Police Department related to me, my animals, and any reports or complaints I made regarding abuse, domestic violence, threats, intimidation, or safety concerns, from January 1, 2019 to the present.” Specifically, Ms. Best-Kind sought: [1] All police reports, incident reports, narratives, supplemental reports, and internal notes referencing:  My name…  My animals (dogs and cats, individually or collectively)  Any calls, complaints, welfare checks, or responses involving the above [2] All 911 call logs, CAD entries, dispatch records, and call summaries related to:  Calls made by me  Calls made about me  Calls involving my animals, my residence, or my safety [3] All body-worn camera footage, dash camera footage, photographs, or video recordings connected to any such incidents or responses. [4] All communications, including emails, text messages, internal messaging systems, memoranda, or other correspondence, between:  Harwich Police Department personnel 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

Julie Judge SPR26/1463 Page 2 April 29, 2026  Animal Control Officers  Other municipal employees or agencies that reference me, my animals, or related reports or complaints. [5] Any records reflecting decisions not to investigate, not to cite, not to seize, or otherwise take no action in matters involving my animals or complaints I made. [6] All records related to reports, complaints, or calls made by me regarding abuse, domestic violence, threats, intimidation, or safety concerns, including incident reports, officer narratives, call logs, body-worn camera footage, photographs, and internal communications reflecting decisions to act or not act. On January 5, 2026, it appears Ms. Best-Kind modified the timeframe of her original request to “January 1, 2021 to the present.” On January 6, 2026, Ms. Best-Kind made an additional request for the following: …any and all records in the possession, custody, or control of the Harwich Police Department relating to communications with Brewster Veterinary Hospital concerning my cat … including but not limited to records associated with his illness, death, or any follow-up or investigation related thereto. Accordingly, this request specifically includes, but is not limited to:  Any reports, notes, emails, call logs, memoranda, or internal documentation reflecting contact between Brewster Veterinary Hospital and the Harwich Police Department;  Any records indicating that [an identified officer] contacted, consulted with, or followed up with Brewster Veterinary Hospital regarding this matter;  Any documentation received from Brewster Veterinary Hospital by the Harwich Police Department, whether formal or informal, written or electronic;  Any records reflecting decisions to investigate, decline to investigate, or otherwise take or not take action related to this matter. This request covers the period from March 15, 2024 through December 31, 2025. Previous Appeal These requests were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0403 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 19, 2026). In my February 19th determination, I ordered the Department to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $350.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Subsequently, on March 6, 2026, Ms. Best-Kind stated, “I am withdrawing my request for emails and internal communications and instead focusing on incident-based records,” and submitted the following modified request:

Julie Judge SPR26/1463 Page 3 April 29, 2026 For the timeframe of January 1, 2021 to present, I respectfully request production of the following records: • All incident reports, police reports, officer narratives, supplemental reports, and investigative reports referencing me. • All CAD logs, dispatch records, call summaries, and 911 call records related to calls made by me or about me. • Any records related to animal welfare concerns, animal control involvement, or complaints regarding my dogs or cats. • Any records documenting complaints or reports I made regarding domestic violence, threats, intimidation, safety concerns, or animal abuse. The Department responded on March 16, 2026, providing an updated fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Best-Kind petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1463, was opened as a result. 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). The Department’s March 16th Response In its March 16, 2026 response, the Department provided a responsive police report, redacted pursuant to G. L. c. 93H, as it operates through Exemption (a), as well as Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law.

Julie Judge SPR26/1463 Page 4 April 29, 2026 In addition, the Department provided a fee estimate of $200 to produce additional responsive records to Ms. Best-Kind’s March 6, 2026 modified request. In support of its fee estimate, the Department provided the following information: As permitted by law, the police department may charge for employee search time to locate and identify additional non-exempt records, other than those enclosed or exempt as outlined above, at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling, segregating, redacting where required by law, and reproducing responsive records, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i)… That time is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of locating the responsive records, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i). Harwich RAO $25hr x 4hrs search for police records Admin Lieutenant $25hr x 4hrs search for police records Upon receipt of payment of the total amount of $200, payable by cash or check to the Town of Harwich, the police department will begin the work necessary to comply with all items of your request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Best-Kind stated: While the Department issued a revised fee estimate on March 16, 2026, it has not complied in substance with the Supervisor’s order. Specifically:  The revised fee estimate was not meaningfully explained or tied to specific tasks  No itemized breakdown of the scope of responsive records has been provided  My request for a fee waiver remains unaddressed  No partial production of clearly identifiable records has been provided  No production timeline has been given  Previously requested records, including incident reports and Animal Control documentation, remain outstanding. 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

Julie Judge SPR26/1463 Page 5 April 29, 2026 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. Please be 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). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Department indicates that it will take 8 hours to search for the remaining responsive records, it is unclear why the Department requires this much time. In this case, the Department appears not to be charging a fee for segregation or redaction and has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 per hour is equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks. However, the Department must provide additional explanation of the task(s) involved in the search process and explain why it will take 4 hours each for the Harwich RAO and the Admin Lieutenant to search for police records. The Department’s fee estimate also lacks confirmation of the Town’s population and how a fee may be assessed for the first two hours of employee time. Accordingly, the Department must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $200.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). With regard to Ms. Best-Kind’s objections regarding the Department’s failure to produce specific records, please be advised that where the Department has yet to produce the records subject to the fee estimate, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Ms. Best-Kind may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). This office encourages Ms. Best-Kind and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Best-Kind may wish to narrow her request. 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate.

Julie Judge SPR26/1463 Page 6 April 29, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Best-Kind with a response to the request(s), 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. Ms. Best-Kind may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kendall Best-Kind Aram Goshgarian