← Back to Search
Ostrander, John v. Brookline, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20262353)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 06-23-2026
ClosedFee Petition
SPR 20262353 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Ostrander, John concerning records held by Brookline, Town of - Police Department, opened 06-23-2026. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20262353
- Case Type
- Fee Petition
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Ostrander, John
- Date Opened
- 06-23-2026
- Date Closed
- 06-30-2026
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 30, 2026 SPR26/2353 Amanda Williams Records Clerk Brookline Police Department 350 Washington Street Brookline, MA 02445 Dear Ms. Williams: On June 23, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Brookline Police Department (Department) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a public records request. 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, John Ostrander. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 8, 2026, Mr. Ostander requested, “all bodycam footage for this case in video format. I want all bodycam footage from every officer involved in the arrest of [an identified individual] on February 7, 2026, at his condo in the Coolidge Corner area of Brookline, MA.” 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 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 Amanda Williams SPR26/2353 Page 2 June 30, 2026 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Department is seeking to charge an hourly rate of $37.35 per hour for this request. The Department provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: The files that are requested are body worn camera digital files, which contain a mix of public and private information. These files are confidential and maintained separately from other files within our department. Given the sensitive nature of some of these files, department policy specifically requires that these files be maintained in a secure environment, separate from other records. These records are maintained in a server which is maintained in a separate locked office. This separate office is occupied by the Informational Technology Officers in charge of digital records management systems for the Brookline Police Department. Access to this office and these files/servers is highly restricted, and the IT Officers are the Amanda Williams SPR26/2353 Page 3 June 30, 2026 lowest ranked persons with access to these files/severs. These officers have specialized training and security clearances to manage, maintain, and secure the digital files associated with the Department body cameras for our RMS. The lowest paid employee with access to these confidential records who can perform the task required for this public records request is the IT Officers of the department. To allow an employee of lower rank/pay access would violate our own department policy on confidentiality and security, and also jeopardize our status as an accredited police department. It would also undermine confidence in the security of these files, which would be detrimental to the ability to conduct effective investigations, the ability to provide effective law enforcement, as well as provide transparency. I find the Department 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). Accordingly, the Department may assess a fee limited to $37.35 per hour. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department may assess a fee limited to $37.35 per hour. Please note, Mr. Ostrander 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: John Ostrander