Amy Kates v. Cotuit, Town of - Fire District (SPR 20181446)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords October 15, 2018 SPRlS/1446 Ray Pirrone Treasurer Cotuit Fire District 64 High Street Cotuit, MA 0263 5 Dear Mr. Pirrone: I have received the petition of Amy Kates appealing the response of the Cotuit Fire District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on September 27, 2017 Ms. Kates requested "invoices received from any attorneys retained by the Board of Fire Commissioners, to include the reasons for the requests for representation, for the period of 7 /1/16 through 6/30/17." Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPRl 7/1470 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 25, 2017); SPRl 7/1566 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 14, 2017); SPRl 7/1715 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22, 2017); SPR18/133 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 13, 2018); SPR18/1017 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25, 2018); SPR18/1258 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2018). In my September 12th determination I ordered the District to provide Ms. Kates a response in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Regulations, and the order. The District responded on September 26, 2018. Ms. Kates appealed and SPR18/1446 was opened as a result. Current appeal In an August 17, 2018 appeal petition Ms. Kates indicates she paid a fee of $96.00 to obtain records. I understand the District provided responsive records on May 22, 2018. In my ih September 1 determination I found the District must demonstrate whether it responded to the 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

Ray Pirrone SPR18/1446 Page 2 October 15, 2018 records request within ten business days following receipt of the request in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e ) and 950 C.M.R 32.06(2)(c ). In the District's September 26th response you indicate "[a]ccording to our records you made the formal request on October 16, 2017 and received a response on October 28th within the 10 working day response limit (see attached emails). In addition, you revised your request from ' ... all legal invoices from any attorneys retained by the Board of Fire Commissioners.' to ' ... all warrants and invoices and legal expenses ... ' on April 24, 2018 and received a response from the District on April 27, 2018 (see attached email copies). Thus you received responses within the 10 day period." In her current appeal petition Ms. Kates asserts "[t]he District has not demonstrated that they responded to my initial records request within ten business days. Therefore, the charges were not proper and a refund is due." Summary ofr equests and responses Based upon a review of files associated with Ms. Kates' appeals, her September 23, 2017 request sought "invoices received from any attorneys retained by the Board of Fire Commissioners, to include the reasons for the requests for representation, for the period of 7/1/16 through 6/30/17." The District responded this request on October 10, 2017 by indicating the following: I apologize for the late reply. I was waiting on an estimate of cost to fulfill your request. It was estimated the cost for request is $60.00. This estimate may change once the information is has been collected. If the estimate is agreeable I will have the Treasurer begin his search. This October 1o th response was not provided within 10 business days of the September 23rd request. Further, it did not address pertinent provisions of G.L. c. 66, § 1O (b ), such as identifying any public records that District intends to produce, providing an itemized, good faith · estimate of any fees that may be charged, and including a statement informing the requestor of the right to appeal an unfavorable decision. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(i)-(ix). Ms. Kates also submitted a request on October 16, 2017 that sought "invoices received from any attorneys retained by the Board of Fire Commissioners, to include the reasons for the requests for representation, for the period of 7/1/17 through the present." The District responded on October 28, 2018. In addition, on April 24, 2018 Ms. Kates requested "all warrants for legal expenses for the Fire Department, during the timeframe of 1/1/17 to the present, so that I can view the warrants." The District responded on April 27, 2018. Based on the past determinations regarding this matter, as well as Ms. Kates' most recent appeal petition, I find the request at issue in this appeal to be her September 23rd request for

Ray Pirrone SPR18/1446 Page 3 October 15, 2018 "invoices received from any attorneys retained by the Board of Fire Commissioners, to include the reasons for the requests for representation, for the period of 7/1/16 through 6/30/17." G. L. c. 66, § I O(e) The District argues that it complied with G. L. c. 66, § lO(e) by responding to the October 16th request within ten business days. Although Ms. Kates' October 16th request is similar to her September 23rd request, the requests include different applicable time periods; i.e., the September 23rd request seeks records from "7/1/16 through 6/30/17" and the October 16th request seeks records from "7/1/17 through the present." Whereas these time periods do not overlap, I find these are separate requests and each required responses under G. L. c. 66, § lO(b ). Whereas the District's October 10th response was not made under G. L. c. 66, § lO(b) within 10 business of the September 23rd request, I find the District did not comply with G. L. c. 66, § lO(e) and 950 C.M.R 32.06(2)(c). Accordingly, the District may not assess a fee for the provision of records responsive to the September 23rd request. Please note this determination only applies to the fee estimate associated with the September 23rd request. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Kates a response in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Regulations, and this order within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Amy Kates Marielise Kelly, Esq.