Patrick Hannon v. Uxbridge, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20171582)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords November 15, 2017 SPR17/1582 Kathleen E. Connolly, Esq. Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP Town Counsel Town of Uxbridge 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 ofrequested records, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Town is also seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. Id. As required by law, the Town furnished a·copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). On October 2, 2017, Patrick Hannon requested seven categories of record, including "[a ]ny emails received by any town recipient from the vice chairman of the planning board Barry Desruisseaux from April 1, 2017 to October 2, 2017." 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. SPRl 7/1582 Page2 November 15, 2017 G. L. c. 66 § lO(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 requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for relieff rom obligation to respond to request In its petition dated November 6, 2017 in support of its request for relieff rom its obligation to respond to Mr. Alexander's October 2n request, the Town explains the request submitted is part of a "series of repeated, large requests are unduly burdensome, designed to intimidate or harass the Town employees, are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity." As evidence of this, the Town sent two additional requests Mr. Hannon made after his October 2nd request, as well as the Town Manager's response requesting he narrow his request. The Town notes they "previously prepared and provided him with a voluminous response to his first public records request dated August 24, 2017 and many of the records provided are relevant" to the October 2nd request, including category 7 in which the Town informed Mr. Hannon they had already produced the documents electronically on a disk that he could pick up at Town Hall. Based on the information provided in the November 1st petition, I find the District has not met its burden to establish that the request received on October 2nd 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 ). October 2nd Request In its November 6, 2017 petition, the Town requests "an extension to answer as well as requesting that he narrow the request to avoid duplicative requests and to identify topics or keywords in emails sought." The Town provided Mr. Hannon with a response to his October 2nd indicating they could provide categories 1-5 after the Town had "an opportunity to review them for attorney-client privilege or Public Records Law exemption; however some of the documents (item 6) are overly broad and unduly burdensome." The Town explained category 6 "is not limited to any topic or address, making it unduly broad and burdensome to Town employees."

Kathleen E. Connolly, Esq. SPRI 7/1582 Page 3 November 15, 2017 For the reasons stated above, the Town in its October 12, 2017 response to Mr. Hannon requested he narrow his request. 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, § IO(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 Mr. Hannon 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 October 12th response suggesting a modification of the request, it is unnecessary to opine on the Town's petition for an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § IO(b)(vii); see also G. L. c. 66, § IO(a)(i)(a request must reasonably describes the public record sought). Upon receiving clarification from Mr. Hannon 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, ~ u r r ~ Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Hannon