Sharpless, David v. Orleans, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20262111)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 10, 2026 SPR26/2111 Suzanne Fecteau Administrative Assistant Office of the Chief of Police Orleans Police Department 99 Eldredge Park Way Orleans, MA 02653 Dear Ms. Fecteau: On June 3, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Orleans Police Department (Department) seeking relief from the obligation to produce 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, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, David Sharpless. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). From May 22, 2026 through June 1, 2026, Mr. Sharpless submitted a total of 36 requests, covering a vast array of subjects and categories of records. Petitions for an Extension of Time and Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records 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 the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and 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

Suzanne Fecteau SPR26/2111 Page 2 June 10, 2026 (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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). The Department’s Request for Relief In its petition, the Department seeks “relief from the obligation to provide responsive records to the above-referenced requester.” In support of its request, the Department argues the following: On May 22, 2026, the requester petitioned for an appeal in regard to redactions on a public request emailed to him on the same day. The decision from your office was delivered on Friday May 29, 2026, stating that we were in our purview to redact the information in accordance to exemptions c and f. Since May 22, 2026, the requester has submitted 36 additional requests, many of which are repetitive, excessively burdensome, or submitted in a manner that has escalated beyond normal administrative engagement. In addition to the frequency and scope of these requests, the requests will require a substantial work commitment and an undue burden to the department, as some requests will require other divisions within the Police Department and other departments within the Town of Orleans to complete. While we remain committed to transparency and to fulfilling our obligations under public records laws, the nature, volume, and repetition of these interactions have created a strain on our staff and resources. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find that the Department has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Consequently, I am unable to grant the Department’s request for relief from the obligation to provide records. In its petition, the Department also requests the following: 1. Guidance on managing repetitive or burdensome requests, including any

Suzanne Fecteau SPR26/2111 Page 3 June 10, 2026 applicable provisions that allow for reasonable limitations or consolidation of requests. 2. Consideration of relief measures, if available under applicable law or policy, to address requests that appear intended to harass, intimidate, or disrupt operations. 3. Any best practices or recommended protocols for handling this situation while remaining compliant with Public Records Law. 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). 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). 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,

Suzanne Fecteau SPR26/2111 Page 4 June 10, 2026 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). Entitled to One Copy of a Public Record; May Not Circumvent Fees Please be advised that according to 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(a), “upon request, a requester shall be entitled to receive in hand, by mail, by facsimile or electronically one copy of a public record or any desired portion of a public record.” Additionally, please be advised that this office has previously held that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. See e.g. SPR24/1815 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 26, 2024), SPR23/0535 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 4, 2023), and SPR22/1404 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 1, 2022); accord e.g. 32 C.F.R. § 1662.13(f) (Chief FOIA Officer may aggregate multiple requests to charge fees when requestor divides single request into series to avoid fees), and Idaho Code § 74-102(11) (requestor may not file multiple requests for public records solely to avoid payment of fees). Conclusion As explained above, I cannot grant the Department’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. Please note, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Sharpless