Ronald Alexander v. Wellesley, Town of (SPR 20170899)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July10,2017 SPR17/899 Judith M. Belliveau Assistant Superintendent, Finance and Operations Wellesley Public Schools 40 Kingsbury Street Wellesley, MA 02481 Dear Ms. Belliveau: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Wellesley (Town) 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, the Town furnished a copy ofthis petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § 10 (c ). Ronald Alexander requested a redacted version of documents produced by the School Department in response to public records requests. 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 § 10(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

Judith M. Belliveau SPR17/899 Page 2 July 10,2017 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). Current petition In its petition dated June 30, 2017 the Town explains that on December 7, 2016 Mr. Alexander sought the opportunity to inspect all documents produced by the School Department in response to public records requests. The School Department provided access to all responsive documents and Mr. Alexander scanned and created electronic copies of responsive documents. You indicate that "[a] subsequent review, however, revealed that some of the documents contained Personal Information protected under M.G.L. c.93H. Specifically, documents to which Mr. Alexander was provided access included protected Personal Information of three (3) Massachusetts residents." You explain that on January 10,2017, Town Counsel requested that Mr. Alexander return all copies of documents that he had made in response to the December 7, 2016 request and that "Town Counsel offered to provide Mr. Alexander with a complete set of documents, with Personal Information redacted, at no cost to Mr. Alexander." I understand that Town Counsel made this same offer in subsequent letters. Mr. Alexander responded to Town Counsel's offer by requesting the names of the affected residents. In addition, on June 14, 2017, Mr. Alexander, without returning the copies, asked for the redacted versions of the responsive records. Town Counsel responded to the June 14th request by stating "[i]fl send you redacted copies before you return the 'originals' to me, you can compare the two documents and I will be specifically directing you to the information that was not supposed to be disclosed to you." Request for relieff rom obligation to produce responsive records The Town is requesting that it "be relieved of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought until such time as Mr. Alexander confirms that he has deleted all electronic files containing the unredacted records." In support of its petition for relief from its obligation to produce records, the Town claims "Mr. Alexander's June 14, 2017, public records request is a request for documents that he already has in his possession and serves no purpose other than identifying Personal Information protected from disclosure under Chapter 93H."

Judith M. Belliveau SPR17/899 Page 3 July 10, 2017 With respect to G.L. c. 93H, the Town states "there is no manner in which the requested documents can be provided to Mr. Alexander without creating a further statutory violation." The Town continues by stating "if the School Department provides him with the records now in redacted form he will be able to quickly compare the redacted document with the unreacted documents to find the protected information. In fact, in one of his June 14 emails, Mr. Alexander shared that he would use the records for this purpose." The Town indicates Mr. Alexander has submitted hundreds of public records requests to the Town and "Mr. Alexander's conduct demonstrates a clear pattern of harassment of Town staff." The Town further asserts that "[e]ven ignoring his prior requests and conduct towards the Town, Mr. Alexander's June 14, 2017, request is an obvious abuse ofthe Public Records Law. Simply put, no lawful purpose is served by Mr. Alexander's request." Based on the information provided in the June 30th petition, I find the Town has not met its burden to establish that the June 14th 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" as required by G. L. c. 66 § 10 ( c). Reasonable description oft he requested record In an email to Mr. Alexander dated June 14th, Town Counsel indicates "it is my understanding that you inspected these documents at the School's offices and made scans of some, but perhaps not all, of the documents that were made available to you. My office has no method of determining which documents you determined to be worth scanning without viewing the copies you made." Town Counsel also explained that "it is possible that you did not scan the documents containing protected information. If that is the case, our review of your copies would confirm whether or not a copy was in fact made." The parties are advised that under the Public Records Law, requests for records shall include a reasonable description of the requested record to so that the records access officer can identify and locate it promptly. G.L. c. 66, § lO(a)(i); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(b). Conclusion For the reasons described above, I decline to grant the Town's request for relief of its obligation to provide public records responsive to Mr. Alexander's June 14th request. Mr. Alexander may appeal the substantive nature of the Town's response to his June 14th request within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Judith M. Belliveau SPR17/899 Page 4 July 10, 2017 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander