Daniel Feidt v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20181741)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords November 26, 2018 SPR18/1741 Lt. John M. Azzari Revere Police Department 400 Revere Beach Pkwy Revere, MA 02151 Dear Lt. Azzari: I have received your petition on behalf of the Revere Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested public record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § IO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Specifically, on November 1, 2018 Daniel Feidt requested "[a]ll documents created between January 12010 and October 31 2018 pertaining to" certain contractors, "the Coplink Software package," as well as certain policies and memoranda of understanding. Petitions/or 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

Lt. John M. Azzari SPR18/1741 Page 2 November 26, 2018 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). Current petition In its November 16, 2018 petition the Department asks this office to grant an extension of time to produce records" ... or relieve the department of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought." You indicate that "[d]ue to the magnitude or difficulty of the request, it unduly burdens the department to accomplish our other responsibilities." You also provide information regarding staffing within the Department's Records Division and note that "[t]his is an extremely busy department with a high volume of calls for service, which makes the Records Division an extremely busy office. We receive a high volume of records requests, which each employee assists in fulfilling." You also note that the Department is currently working on other requests from MuckRock. The Department asserts that " ... the magnitude of these types of requests makes it unreasonable to fulfill within 10 days, without directly impacting services that we provide to the community, courts and other agencies that are dependent on receiving records in the performance of their daily activities." Based on the information provided in its petition, I find that the Department has not met its burden to demonstrate the requests are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass. The Department also has not established how these requests, which pertain to records such as those related to contractors and memoranda of understanding 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, § lO(c). Further, I find the Department has not established good cause to permit an extension of time to produce records. See G. L. c. 66 § lO(c)(i)-(iv). Specifically, it is not clear whether the Department requires more than 25 business days from the receipt of the request to produce records as allowed by G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vi), and if so, how many days it seeks for the extension. See G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(b )(vi) ( a municipality may provide a timeframe not to exceed 25 business days to produce responsive records). It is also unclear whether the Department provided a copy of the petition to the requestor as required by G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). This office encourages the Department and Mr. Feidt to communicate to facilitate providing records efficiently and affordably. G. L. c. 66, § lO(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

Lt. John M. Azzari SPR18/1741 Page 3 November 26, 2018 more efficiently and affordably). If necessary, the Department may submit another petition within 20 business days of receipt of any modified request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c ). Conclusion Accordingly, I decline to grant the Department's petition for an extension of time to produce the responsive records at this time. If it has not already done so, the Department is advised it must provide a response to Mr. Feidt in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Regulations without delay. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Daniel Feidt