Shaffer, Maya v. Boston, City of - Mayor's Office (SPR 20150202)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Shawn A. Williams Supervisor of Records

July 13, 2015 SPR15/202

Ms. Laura Oggeri

Chief Communications Officer Office of the Mayor

City of Boston

One City Hall Square

Boston, MA 02201

Dear Ms. Oggeri:

I have received the petition of Maya Shaffer of The Bay State Examiner appealing the nonresponse of the City of Boston Mayor’s Office (City) to her March 9, 2015 request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Ms. Shaffer requested “all complaints received about the snow, or related to the snow [that the City] received in 2015”. Having received no response within ten (10) days, Ms. Shaffer petitioned this office.

Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten (10) days of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.05. The response may be an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. The City is advised that all records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response.

Subsequent to the intervention by a member of my staff, this office was notified that a response was provided, dated March 27, 2015; coincidentally this is the date of Ms. Shaffer’s appeal. The City provided Ms. Shaffer with a link to a web portal and spreadsheet of complaints to the City made to the Mayor’s Hotline, Citizens Connect, email, and regular mail. This internet portal provides free access to all complaints responsive to Ms. Shaffer’s request. While a custodian may charge for the cost of providing records in response to a request, it is the prerogative of the custodian whether to charge fees or waive fees. The web portal allowed Ms. Shaffer to receive the records free of charge. This response, however, fails to acknowledge Ms. Shaffer’s request for the complaints themselves, not a compiled list.

After receipt of the city’s response, Ms. Shaffer sent a March 30, 2015 email requesting the actual hard copy complaints. The same day, you responded to Ms. Shaffer that the information she received is a comprehensive documentation of all snow complaints. On April 10, 2015, you explained that “each service request that comes to the Mayor’s office is documented on [a] web data portal.”

One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 - (617) 727-2832 - Fax (617) 727-5914

www.sec.state.ma.us/ pre

Ms. Laura Oggeri i SPR15/202 Page Two July 13, 2015

In an April 10, 2015 email you provided to Ms. Shaffer a fee estimate for processing of the responsive email records. You further explained that retrieval of mailed records would involve a “substantial effort over several weeks at an unknown cost.” Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten (10) days of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.05. The response may be an offer to provide records, a fee estimate, a denial, or a response that there are no records responsive to the request. The City is advised that all records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2) (where cost of complying with a request for public records is expected to exceed ten dollars ($10.00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). To date Ms. Shaffer has not responded to this fee estimate.

In her petition Ms. Shaffer objects to what she deems the failure of the City to advise her of her rights of administrative appeal. see 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Whereas the City did not deny access to record, I find no violation of the regulations.

_ Ms. Shaffer also requested training to assist the City in its obligations under the Public records Law and its regulations. It should be noted that such training was provided.

Whereas this matter was initially opened based upon the City’s failure to provide a written response, and that the City has provided records responsive to the March 9 request, I find that the City has sufficiently responded to the request in compliance with the Public Records Law. Further, the City has cured this failure by providing a fee e§timate. Ms. Shaffer may appeal the substantive nature of this response within ninety (90) days. $¢e 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2).

cc: Ms. Maya Shaffer