Andrew J. Gambaccini v. Springfield, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20171477)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 26, 2017 SPR17/1477 Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. City Clerk City of Springfield 36 Court Street; Room 123 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Wilson: I have received the petition of Andrew J. Gambaccini, Esq. of Reardon, Joyce & Akerson, P. C. appealing the response of the City ·of Springfield Police Department (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Attorney Gambaccini requested a copy of: All documents reflecting communications including emails sent or received by any of the following individuals: Commissioner John Barbieri; Deputy Chief Mark Anthony; Deputy Chief Robert Cheetham; Deputy Chief William Cochrane; Captain Larry Brown; Lieutenant Stephen Wyzinkski and Sergeant Richard Pelchar since June 9, 2016, concerning any of the following: 1. The internal investigations Unit inquiry into the arrest and prosecution of Shazam Suarez; 2. The City's Police Department's (Department) Narcotics Unit; or, 3. Any of the following members of the Department: (a) Lieutenant Steven Kent; (b) Lieutenant Alberto Ayala; (c) Sergeant Christopher Hitas; (d) Sergeant Lawrence Murphy; (e) Officer Jaime Bruno; (f) Officer Edwin Hernandez; (g) Officer Aristides Casillas; (h) Officer Michael Goggin; (i) Officer William Lopes; (j) Officer Felix Aguirre; (k) Officer Mark Templeman; . (1) Officer Matthew Reif; 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

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. SPR17/1477 Page2 October 26, 2017 (m) Officer Edward Kalish; (n) Officer Jose Robles; ( o) Officer Juan Rodriguez; (p) Officer Daniel Huard; (q ) Officer Luke Cournoyer; and, (r) Officer Robert Carter. The City provided Attorney Gambaccini with a May 1st response, including a written fee estimate at a total cost of $869.00. The estimate is based on personnel in the Department's Information and Technology (IT) Division searching for and compiling 1,889 emails that may be responsive to the request. The City's $869.00 total estimate is based on: • 1,889 pages to copy at five cents ($.05) per page= $94.45 • 31 hours of segregation and redaction@ $25.00 per hour= $775.00 Attorney Gambaccini paid the estimate; however, on August 18th, the City returned Attorney Gambaccini's $869.00 check when it provided him with thirteen (13) emails, and other previously requested records regarding the internal affairs investigation. The basis of Attorney Gambaccini's appeal is thatthe City only provided him with 13 emails out of the 1,889 emails that were culled by the Department's IT Division. Attorney Gambaccini questions the discrepancy in the number of emails, and other communication records, compiled by the IT Division versus the number of emails he received. As a result of Attorney Gambaccini's petition, this appeal was opened. In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requesters in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). On October 20th an attorney in the Public Records Division had a telephone conversation with Andrea Stone, the City's Records Coordinator, regarding the 13 communication records that were produced, versus the May 1st response that stated that the Department's IT Division had identified 1,889 emails that may be responsive to Attorney Gambaccini's request. During the conversation it was explained that while the City returned Attorney Gambaccini's check on August 18th for the cost of providing the emails, the City did not explain to Attorney Gambaccini the difference in the number of emails compiled versus the number of emails he received. Ms. Stone promised that another response relative to the request for the communications including emails, and the discrepancy in what Attorney Gambaccini actually received on August 18th_ On October 26th, the City provided a supplemental response to Attorney Gambaccini including a list of all the emails that were compiled, and that the City intends to assist Attorney Gambaccini in receiving any records that may be responsive to his request.

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. SPR1711477 Page 3 October 26, 2017 Conclusion Accordingly, whereas this office advised the City to provide a supplemental response to Attorney Gambaccini concerning the requested emails and other communications, and that the City did so on October 26th, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Attorney Gambaccini may appeal the substantive nature of the response within ninety (90) calendar days. · Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew J. Gambaccini, Esq.