James Roberti v. Uxbridge, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20171494)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary ofthe Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords October 24, 2017 SPR17/1494 Kathleen E. Connolly, Esq. Louison, Costello, Condon, & Pfaff, LLP Town ofUxbridge 101 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Connolly: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Uxbridge (Town) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested 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 furnished a copy ofthis petition to the requestor. Id. Attorney James Roberti requested "copies of all public records between the dates of July 1, 2013 and September 7, 2017 involving subjects related to the following individuals, businesses, or parcels ofland." Attorney Roberti went on to list thirteen individuals, six entities, and six addresses. 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

Kathleen E. Connolly, Esq. SPR17/1494 Page 2 October 24, 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. I d. 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 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In its October 13, 2017 petition the Town requests a "20 day extension to answer the request and an order requiring the requestor to narrow the unduly burdensome request." The Town explains "given the magnitude of the request, difficulty in locating and producing all documents, and an undue burden it places on town employees" the Town sent a letter to Attorney Roberti on September 21, 2017 asking that he narrow his request. For example, the Town provides "he listed multiple town employees and state agency officials and requested 'copies of all public records between the dates of July 1, 2013 and September 7, 2017 involving subjects related to the following individuals, businesses or parcels of land' without identifying topics or properties." The Town indicates that "it is impossible for the Town to provide every record relating to every town employee or state agency official on every topic and property during the four year time period." In the Town's response to Attorney Roberti they ask him to narrow his request for the reasons stated above. The Town indicates they have received no reply to their letter sent on September 21, 2017 from Attorney Roberti. Under the updated Public Records Law and Access Regulations, an agency or municipality must provide a written response to the requester within ten business days. G.L. c. 66, § IO(b); 950 C.M.R. 36.06(2)(a)-(b). This written response may "suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably." G.L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(vii). The Town provided this suggestion in its September 21st response. I understand a member of the Public Records Division staff contacted you and you indicated that Attorney Scanlon has not yet responded to the suggestion to modify the scope of the request. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that in light of the Town's September 21st response suggesting a modification ofthe request, it is unnecessary to opine on the Town's petition for an extension of

Kathleen E. Connolly, Esq. SPR17/1494 Page 3 October 24, 2017 time. See G.L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii); see also G.L. c. 66, § lO(a)(i)(a request must reasonably describes the public record sought). Upon receiving clarification from Attorney Roberti about the scope of his request, the Town must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Sincerely, ~a~ Supervisor of Records cc: James Roberti, Esq.