Chadwick, Jared v. Dennis, Town of (SPR 20262093)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 10, 2026 SPR26/2093 Theresa T. Brunce Town Clerk Town of Dennis 458 Main Street Dennis, MA 02660-1614 Dear Ms. Brunce: On June 3, 2026, this office received the petition of Antoine Fares, Esq., of Norris, Murray & Peloquin LLC, on behalf of the Town of Dennis seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jared Chadwick. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 19, 2026, Mr. Chadwick requested, “copies of all public records and information in the possession, custody, or control of the Town of Dennis and/or its departments, boards, committees, employees, agents, and representatives relating to or referencing [identified search terms].” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from 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

Theresa T. Brunce SPR26/2093 Page 2 June 10, 2026 the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the Town requests “an extension of up to thirty (30) business days to respond…[.]” In support of its request, the Town provides the following information: In order to identify any responsive records, several employees from more than one Town Department will have to search for, segregate and review devices, emails, text messages and other documents and make any necessary redactions. Further, I will have to review documents to determine if the document or any information in the document is exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege and, if so, make the necessary redactions. It will take a substantial number of hours to do the work. In a separate petition submitted today, the Town is requesting that the SPR allow the Town to charge Mr. Chadwick for a portion of the costs of complying with his request. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Theresa T. Brunce SPR26/2093 Page 3 June 10, 2026 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality 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 municipality 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Town requests permission “to charge Mr. Chadwick $25/hour for that work.” In support of its petition, the Town provides the following information: The lowest compensated employees who can perform the work required to comply with Mr. Chadwick’s request are paid more than $25/hour. The Town

Theresa T. Brunce SPR26/2093 Page 4 June 10, 2026 requests to charge Mr. Chadwick $25/hour for that work. The Town relies on the following exemptions for this part of the petition: M.G.L. c. 4, s. 7(26)(c) (“Exemption C”). Mr. Chadwick is requesting records that may include personnel information relating to other employees that would result in unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed to him. See Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798-799 (2000); and M.G.L. c. 4, s. 7(26)(f) (“Exemption F”). Mr. Chadwick seeks record pertaining to an ongoing investigation. In light of the Town’s petition, I find that the Town has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Town is seeking to charge an hourly rate of $75.00 per hour for attorney review. The Town provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: Under the Public Records law, the Town can withhold any information from records that is exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. In his request, Mr. Chadwick requests records that include communications with me and other attorneys employed at my firm in the past year that pertain to the Town’s disciplinary investigation against Mr. Chadwick. Under the public records law, information that is protected by attorney-client privilege is exempt from disclosure. See Suffolk Const. Co. v. Div. of Cap. Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 (2007). None of the Town employees are qualified to do this part of the work. The Town will be paying me to review and redact the documents to ensure that the privileged information is not provided. In light of the Town’s petition, I find the Town has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In light of the factors in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), I find the Town may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. The Town may not assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour for other tasks. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and

Theresa T. Brunce SPR26/2093 Page 5 June 10, 2026 redaction. The Town may also assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. The Town may not assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour for other tasks. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Town to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Chadwick has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jared Chadwick