Maya Shaffer v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20170652)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records Mayl8,2017 SPR17/652 William J. Maloney City Clerk City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA O1 840 Dear Mr. Maloney, I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Lawrence (City) seeking permission to redact a record requested by Maya Shaffer. Ms. Shaffer requested "statistics, memos, and communication that support Mayor Rivera's claim that Minivans are the #1 vehicle in transportation of stolen rims in Lawrence" as well as other communication. This request was the subject of an appeal with this office. See SPRl 7/558 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 2, 2017). I closed SPRl 7/558 with the proviso that the City provide Ms. Shaffer a response to her request. Current petition In your petition dated May 11, 2017 you indicate the City "presents a petition for permission to redact information contained in the arrest report dated 3-11-17 responsive to the request for records in order to comply with the exclusions of the CORI law." Under the updated Public Records Law and Access Regulations (Regulations), the Supervisor of Records may approve two types of petitions from records access officers: (1) under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv), a petition from an agency or municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting, or a petition from a municipality to charge in excess of $25 per hour; and (2) under G. L. c. 66, § 10( c ), a petition for an extension of time for an agency or municipality to furnish copies of the requested record, or to seek relief from its obligation of providing records sought. The City's May 11th petition appears to seek permission to redact a record and does not seek permission to assess a fee for such redaction under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(iv), nor seek an 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

William J. Maloney SPRl 7/652 Page 2 May18,2017 extension of time to produce records under G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). Therefore, I cannot opine on the City's petition. Please note that it is the City's burden to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Conclusion In light of the fact that a petition for permission to redact a record is not authorized under the Public Records Law, I cannot opine on the City's petition. The City must provide a response to Ms. Shaffer in a manner consistent with the May 2nd determination, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Ms. Shaffer may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Maya Shaffer