Theodore Mieczkowski v. Hadley, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20171485)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords October 17, 2017 SPR17/1485 Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. Operations Supervisor Hadley Police Department 15 East Street Hadley, MA 01035 Dear Sergeant Kuc: I have received your petition on behalf of the Hadley Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( c). The Department is also seeking to charge for segregation and redaction ofthe records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the Department furnished a copy ofthis petition to the requester. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c), (d)(iv)(2). On October 6, 2017 Theodore Mieczkowski requested every police report that a particular officer wrote for identified locations, people, and time periods. 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. 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

Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. SPR17/1485 Page 2 October 17, 2017 G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). 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). Extension oft ime The Department is requesting that this office "relieve us of our obligation to provide the records sought, if not, grant us the maximum extension allowable by law. ..." The Department explains that Mr. Mieczkowski has made many requests for voluminous records and asserts "[h]is requests have the intention to harass police department members by requesting large amounts of documents which are not for the broad dissemination to the public, or regarding government activity." With respect to the request at issue in this petition, you assert there are "over 100 records that must be reviewed and determine what exemptions may apply." I find the Department has not met its burden to show that this request was frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, nor established that the request was not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity as required to relieve the Department of its obligation to produce the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( c). However, in light of the volume and broad scope of request, I find the Department has established good cause to permit an extension oftime of 10 business days beyond the statutorily allowed 25 business days from the date of receipt of the request for production of the responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(v); see also G. L. c. 66 § 10(b)(vi) (a records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which it shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt ofthe request). Petitions for ability to assess fees Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people orJess. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. ld.

Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. SPR1711485 Page 3 October 17, 2017 A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 CMR 32.06(4). The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request, the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction, segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour, and the amount of the fee is reasonable and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. Id. The Department is asking for permission to charge for segregation and redaction time at an hourly rate of $17.60 per hour. A member of the Public Records Division staff spoke with you and you indicated that a number of exemptions may be applicable, including those related to juvenile records in the arrest reports which are statutorily required to redact, as well as Exemption (f) to redact witness names and other information. I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records and the applicable exemptions, the request cannot be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Consequently, I approve the petition from the Department to assess a fee for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for an extension of time as described above. Additionally, the Department's petition to assess fees for segregation and redaction of the records is granted. The Department is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with this determination, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). 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), 10A(c).

Sergeant Mitchell J. Kuc, Jr. SPR17/1485 Page 4 October 17, 2017 Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Theodore Mieczkowski