Robert Davis v. Medford, City of - Law Department (SPR 20170446)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 10, 2017 Kimberly M. Scanlon, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Records Access Officer City of Medford Medford, MA 0215 5 Dear Attorney Scanlon: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Medford (City) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66 § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Specifically, Robert Davis of BuildZoom requested records related to all building permits for "at least the last ten years." Petitions 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 ofrequests from 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 § lO(c) If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous 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

Kimberly M. Scanlon, Esq. Page 2 March 10, 2017 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 requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 CMR 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In your initial petition dated March 8, 2017 you explain the City received Mr. Davis's request "on or about" March 1, 2017 and "due to the voluminous amount of permits that are included in this 10 year request and the IT issue, I respectfully request an extension." In a subsequent email to Mr. Davis dated March 9, 2017, City Solicitor Mark Rumley, Esq. indicates "please be advised that the City will require [a] timeframe of 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records." Conclusion In light of the City's March 9th email I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City's extension request because it intends to provide responsive records within twenty five (25) business days of the receipt of the request as allowed in G. L. c. 66 § IO(b)(vi). The City is advised it must seek another petition for extension if it cannot provide responsive records within twenty five (25) business days of the receipt of the request. G. L. c. 66 § 10( c ). The records must be provided in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. Mr. Davis may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Davis Mark Rumley, Esq.