Brian T. Hardiman v. Norwood, Town of (SPR 20171348)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 29, 2017 SPR17/1348 Karis L. North, Esq. Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LP Town Counsel Town ofNorwood 300 Crown Colony Drive Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Attorney North: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Norwood (Town) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested public record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the Town provided a copy of the petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). The requestor, Brian Hardiman, submitted multiple requests for public records related to certain development projects. Petitions for an extension oftime 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

Karis L. North, Esq. SPR17/1348 Page 2 September 29, 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 your petition you explain the Town is "petitioning for an additional ten business days in which to respond to multiple public records requests from Mr. Brian Hardiman." The Town explains it is seeking a time extension because "the multiple requests, follow-up from initial responses, ancltb.~Y91l1111~ gf QQ()l11l'l~l11s JHld rmmb~r of town de~atlmentdnv~obred~hasmadeiL~··~~·~~ difficult for the Norwood public records access officers and I to complete a timely response." The Town further explains "Mr. Hardiman sent additional requests for documents, some of which appear to be a duplicate of the August 28, 2017 request, and some of which appear to be new requests on different matters, on September 14, 2017, on September 17, 2017, and on September 18, 2017." Further, the Town indicates "Mr. Hardiman has made further follow-up requests from his August 28, 2017 request" and that the responsive documents to all the above requests require a review by counsel. You indicate the Town is proposing to provide "a consolidated response to the multiple requests, based on the September 18, 2017 request date." In an email to Mr. Hardiman dated September 29, 2017 you confirmed receipt of the request and indicate the Town is "in the process of compiling and reviewing the requested documents from all applicable Departments, including Zoning, Planning, Conservation, Building, Engineering, and Selectmen." You also assert that the Town will provide a supplemental response and that "[d ]ue to the multiple requests made, and the volume of documents to be reviewed, the Town's subsequent response will be provided to you no later than 15 business day after October 2, 2017, pursuant to M.G.L. c 66, section 10(b)(vi)." Conclusion I find that in light of the Town's September 29th email it is unnecessary to opine on the Town's petition for an extension oftime to respond to the requests. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (a municipality may provide a timeframe not to exceed 25 business days to produce responsive records); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b)(petitions filed under 950 CMR 32.06(4) do not affect the requirement that a records access officer shall provide an initial response to a requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records, pursuant to 950 CMR 32.06(2)(a) or (b)).

Karis L. North, Esq. SPR17/1348 Page 3 September 29, 2017 The Town is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Town's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). The Town is also advised that it must submit another petition to this office for an extension of time, and indicate how many additional days it seeks, if it cannot provide responsive records within twenty five business days of receiving the September 14th, September 1i h, and September 18th requests, respectively. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( c). Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records