MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Matthew A. Viana v. Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20182001)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency must provide records · Filed 12-07-2018

ClosedTime PetitionPetitioner Won

SPR 20182001 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Matthew A. Viana concerning records held by Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk, opened 12-07-2018. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency must provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20182001
Case Type
Time Petition
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Matthew A. Viana
Custodian
Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk
Date Opened
12-07-2018
Date Closed
12-14-2018

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords December 14, 2018 SPRlS/2001 Alison M. Bouchard City Clerk City of Fall River One Government Center Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Ms. Bouchard: i have received your petition on behalf of the City of Fall River (City) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested public record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). On November 21, 2018, Attorney Matthew Viana requested records related to the "investigation of the United States Attorney General's Office of the building permit denial of the Stanley Street Treatment and Resources Inc.'s proposed facility on Weaver Street." 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. 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

Alison M. Bouchard SPR18/2001 Page2 December 14, 2018 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 an (RAO) shall provide 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 a petition dated December 7, 2018 the City indicates it is" ... kindly requesting an extension of time to respond to a public records request, received on November 21, 2018." A member of the Public Records staff contacted the City and it is my understanding that the City is unsure if it will need additional days beyond the .time period allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(vi), which provides that a municipality may provide a time:frame not to exceed 25 business days to produce responsive records. The City indicated it would know next week whether it requires additional days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to opine on the City's petition for an extension of time to produce records at this time. If the City needs additional days beyond the statutory allowance, it must submit a new petition within 20 days ofreceipt of the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). The City is also advised that it must provide a copy of the petition to the requestor. Id. Any records being provided must be produced in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. Attorney Viana may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~rnw~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Viana, Esq. Ines Leite