James A. Scanlon, Esq. v. Waltham, City of - Law Department (SPR 20170499)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords April 20, 2017 SPR17/499 Francis P. Craig, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Waltham 119 School Street Waltham, MA 02451 Dear Attorney Craig: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Waltham (City) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c ). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. James A. Scanlon, Esq. requested seven categories ofrecords regarding zoning ordinances between January 1, 2000 and March 13, 2017. 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 of requests 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

Francis Craig, Esq. SPR17/499 Page 2 April 20, 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 its April 12, 2017 petition the City provides information relative to each provision of G. L. c. 66 § 1 O(c )(i)-(vi) and "requests a review of the public records request to determine whether it is intended to harass or intimidate the Building Inspector." For example, the City claims "the magnitude and difficulty of the request unduly burden the other responsibilities of the Building Inspector such that the City of Waltham is unable to complete the request within the time provided." The City also claims Attorney Scanlon's "record request is an apparent effort to avoid discovery restraints." Further, the City indicates "there is no evidence of an intent to broadly disseminate the records for the information of the public regarding government activity." Prior to submitting the petition to this office, the City provided a response to Attorney Scanlon on March 29, 2017 in which it provided certain responsive records, specifically the "City of Waltham Building Department Violation Logs covering January 1, 2000 through March 13, 2017." The City also highlighted particular cases that "appear to fall into one of the seven categories of zoning violations that you have requested." You indicate the City is "suggesting that a reasonable modification of the scope of the request, to those cases that are specifically of interest to you, would enable the department to produce the records sought more efficiently." A fee estimate was also provided for the provision of a broad set of responsive records. Under the updated Public Records Law and Access Regulations, an agency or municipality must provide a written response to the requester within ten business days. G.L. c. 66, § lO(b); 950 CMR 36.06(2)(a)-(b). This written response may "suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably." G.L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii). The City provided this suggestion in its March 29th response. I understand a Public Records staff attorney contacted you and you indicated that Attorney Scanlon has not yet responded to the suggestion to modify the scope of the request. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that in light of the City's March 29th response suggesting a modification of the request, as well as communications with this office, it is unnecessary to opine on the City's petition to relieve it of its obligation to fulfill the request at this time. See G.L. c.

Francis Craig, Esq. SPR17/499 Page 3 April 20, 2017 66, § IO(b)(vii); see also G.L. c. 66, § IO(a)(i)(a request must reasonably describes the public record sought). Upon receiving clarification from Attorney Scanlon about the scope of his request, the City must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: James A. Scanlon, Esq.