Brook Hopkins v. Whitman, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20171767)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords January 2, 2017 SPR17/1767 Scott D. Benton Chief of Police Whitman Police Department 20 Essex Street Whitman, MA 023 82 Dear Chief Benton: I have received your petition on behalf of the Whitman 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 of the records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). On December 14, 2017, the Department received a request from Brook Hopkins of Harvard Law School, requesting several categories of records concerning arrests made by the Department, inclusive of various information related to the arrest and arrestee. 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. G. L. c. 66, § lO(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

Chief Scott D. Benton SPRl 7/1767 Page2 January 2, 2018 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). 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 or less. 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. Id. 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, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(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. Conclusion As indicated in an email sent to this office on December 29, 2017 by Benji Lu, also of Harvard Law School, the requestor notes their interest to "put a hold" on their request in order to revise their procedure(s). Accordingly, I find in light of the requestor's December 29th email, it is unnecessary to opine on the Department's petition at this time. Sincerely, ~~ Supervisor of Records cc: Brook Hopkins