Bonnie Curran v. Medford, City of - Housing Authority (SPR 20170629)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 15, 2017 SPR17/629 Kathy Fortier Assistant Executive Director Medford Housing Authority 121 Riverside A venue Medford, MA 0215 5 Dear Ms. Fortier: I have received your petition on behalf of the Medford Housing Authority (MHA) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, MHA furnished a copy of this petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). This petition pertains to three requests Bonnie Curran submitted to MHA involving legal invoices, time sheets, and emails. 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). 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

Kathy Fortier SPRl 7/629 Page 2 May 15, 2017 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 requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 CMR 36.06(4)(b). Request for relieff rom obligation to produce responsive records In its May 8, 2017 petition MHA asserts "Ms. Curran has sent to MHA a series of requests that we believe are an abuse of the Public Records Law, as they are unceasing, intrusive, and possibly designed to harass MHA." The three requests at issue in this petition are the following: an April 20, 2017 request for legal invoices; an April 28, 2017 request for all time/sign-in sheets between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014; and a May 2, 2017 request for all e-mails between specifically identified MHA employees. MHA also provides information about additional requests Ms. Curran has made since March 2017. April 20th request You indicate that "MHA does not believe that Ms. Curran's requests are intended to provide information to the public about alleged government activity" and that "Ms. Curran has appealed her discharge to the Civil Service Commission which has scheduled hearings for June 21 and 23, 2017." You assert that "Ms. Curran's on-going requests to MHA under the Public Records Law, appear to be an effort on her part to do an end run on the orderly and more limited discovery that is available to her in the context of her Civil Service Appeal." Based on the information provided in the May gth petition, I find MHA has not met its burden to establish that the April 20th request, which relates to legal invoices, 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" as required by G. L. c. 66 § lO(c). April 28th request With respect to the April 28th request, MHA states "[t]he requests for three years of employee time sheets between 2012 and 2014 is burdensome and is not intended for a public purpose. Ms. Curran seeks these documents for her own private purposes in the context of her employment dispute with MHA as discussed above." I find MHA has not met its burden to establish that the April 28th request, which relates to time/sign in sheets, is "part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or

Kathy Fortier SPRl 7/629 Page 3 May 15, 2017 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" as required by G. L. c. 66 § IO(c). May 2nd request You claim the request for emails between specific MHA employees is "burdensome and is not intended for a public purpose. The time it would take to determine which of these are public records would be significant and costly to MHA, as the agency has already had to divert our limited staff resources to responding to these harassing requests." You also indicate that with respect this May 2nd request, "Ms. Curran seeks these documents for her own private purposes in the context of her employment dispute with MHA as discussed above" and that "Ms. Curran has requested these same documents in her discovery requests in her appeal before the Civil Service Commission." I find MHA has not met its burden to establish that the May 2nd request, which relates to emails of MHA employees, is "part of a series of contemporaneous requests that is 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" as required by G. L. c. 66 § IO(c). Please note MHA may assess a fee fot time spent segregating or redacting records if 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 CMR 32.06(4 ). Conclusion Accordingly, I decline to grant MHA's request for relief of its obligation to provide public records responsive to Ms. Curran's April 2ot\ April 28t\ and May 2nd requests. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Bonnie Curran