Collin Dias v. Fall River, City of - Office of the Corporation Counsel (SPR 20180473)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords April 18,2018 SPR18/473 Jessica Adler, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel City of Fall River One Government Center Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Attorney Adler: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Fall River (City) seeking an extension of time and relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). On March 19, 2018 Collin Dias requested the following records: 1. Any record showing how the city is using funds from the CDA 2. Mayor Correias post FROED economic development plan or if that's not complete then what the Mayor has so far for an Post FRO ED economic development plan 3. Records and communications regarding the upcoming fiscal year budget, which includes graphs, documents with budget numbers, and potential allocations of city money 4. Any emails and text messages from Mayor Correia discussing his vacations to Florida and France 5. Any emails and text messages from Mayor Correia discussing the resignation of Chris Parayno 6. Any emails and text messages to and from Mayor Correia discussing the salary increases for Mary Sahady and Cathy Ann Viverio 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 ~xtension 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; OneAshburtonPlace, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Jessica Adler, Esq. SPR18/473 Page2 April 18, 2018 (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). 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 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In its April 9, 2018 petition the City asserts that request 1 "is a very general and broad request" and that "[a]ny record encompasses EVERY Department, EVERY email mailbox for City Employees, EVERY record CDA has would need to be reviewed for applicability. This is ail umeasonable request given its general and broad scope. Without further specificity no search may be started." This office encourages Mr. Dias and the City to communicate further to narrow the scope of this request. See G. L. c 66, § lO(a)(i) (the request reasonably describes the public record sought). The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(b )(vii) (a municipality shall 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 to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). The City explains that information sought in request 2 "has not been reduced to writing. Therefore, no records exist at this time responsive to this request." With respect to request 5, the City notes the records are "non-existent. There are no records, therefore nothing will be produced." Also, with respect to records responsive to request 6, the City indicates they "do not exist. Therefore, there are no records to produce." Please note the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian ofrecords at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii).

Jessica Adler, Esq. SPR18/473 Page 3 April 18, 2018 The City claims records responsive to request 3 are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). The City also contends that request 4 "is clearly a personal request and as such, is not subject to the public records law." It should be noted that in an April 11, 2018 email, Mr. Dias asserts "I hereby modify request 4, and I ask for all rec.ords on Mayor Correias vacations to Florida and France, that we're on the city dollar, or we're for city related purposes. Such as the National summit for Mayors." The City asserts that "[t]his is another example of a series of requests from the same requestor which are frivolous. The City believes Mr. Dias's contemporaneous requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. Therefore, the City of Fall River respectfully requests a decision relieving the City of Fall River of its obligation to provide records based on the good cause shown above." Based on the information provided in the April 9th correspondence, I find that the City has not met its burden to demonstrate the requests are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass. The City also has not established how these requests, which pertain to records related to the mayor, salary information, budgetary information, and personnel matters, 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, § IO(c). Conclusion For the reasons described above, I decline to grant the. City's petition for relief of its obligation to respond to the requests that remain at issue. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c ). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Collin Dias