Ronald Alexander v. Wellesley, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20171282)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords September 21, 2017 SPR17/1282 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 of this petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On September 6, 2017, Ronald Alexander requested to inspect the "190 requests since 2013" mentioned in a June 20, 2017 School Committee meeting. 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 SPR17/1282 Page 2 September 21, 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 records In its petition dated September 13, 2017 in support of its request for relief from its obligation to respond to Mr. Alexander's September 6th request, the Town asserts "Mr. Alexander has submitted approximately one hundred and sixty two (162) requests to the School Department and School Committee, approximately seventy one (71) of which have been filed since August 2016 ... Mr. Alexander's total number of public records requests now exceeds two hundred (200)." The Town claims now Mr. Alexander has "begun engaging in creative ways to submit redundant requests for documents that he created and that he has previously requested and obtained from the Town." For example, the Town explains that Mr. Alexander made two previous requests, dated December 20, 2016 and August 29, 2017, that included his own public records requests. The Town responded to these requests and explains that the "vast majority of the documents responsive to Mr. Alexander's request were the requests he had created electronically and submitted to the Town." September 6111 request With respect to the request at issue in this petition, the Town explains "Mr. Alexander's September 6 request references a statement made at a School Committee meeting to the effect that' 160 of 190 records requests [received by the School] since 2013 are also from the same individual."' Mr. Alexander seeks "[t]he "190 requests since 2013' as mentioned above." The Town claims "it is clear on the face of this request that: (1) between 80 to 90 per cent of the requested documents were created by Mr. Alexander and that those include hundreds of pages of documents that Mr. Alexander has previously requested and obtained from the Town; and (2) of the small number of documents that were not created by Mr. Alexander, he was previously provided access to those documents." The Town claims Mr. Alexander is "abusing the Public Records Law by repeatedly requesting large collections of documents he has previously obtained from the Town and that he created in the first place." The Town seeks "a determination that Mr. Alexander's September 6

Judith M. Belliveau SPR17/1282 Page 3 September 21, 2017 request is frivolous as Mr. Alexander created the responsive documents and has already obtained the same documents from the Town and the Department through his prior requests." The Town further states that the documents "are not related to government activity, as the documents are merely records of Mr. Alexander's activities" and that he "does not need copies for public dissemination as he has already been provided access to these documents despite the fact that he generated almost all of the responsive documents." In light of Mr. Alexander's previous requests to the Town, includin~ the August 29th request, I find the Town has established that Mr. Alexander's September 6t 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). Conclusion For the reasons described above, I grant the Town's request for relief of its obligation to provide public records responsive to Mr. Alexander's September 6th request. Please note that the requester has the right to seek judicial review of an unfavorable decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( c). Sincerely, f!JJWA~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander