Daniel McFadden v. Springfield, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20191074)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords June 4, 2019 SPR19/1074 Ms. Andrea Stone City of Springfield Office of the City Clerk 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Ms. Stone: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Springfield (City) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c ). As required by law, the City furnished a copy ofthis petition to the requestor. Id. Specifically, on May 8, 2019, Attorney Daniel McFadden of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts requested: "1. All reports by the Police Executive Research Forum ("PERF"), prepared or transmitted from January 1, 2018 to the present, concerning the SPD and/or the CPHB; 2. The "IIU Report by Police Officer" for the following officers and other SPD personnel: a. Moises Zanazanian; b. Remington McNabb; c. James Trubia; d. Sheila Rodriguez; e. Lindsay Tagliapietra; f. Anthony DiSantis; g. Jonathan Torres; h. William Catellier; 3. The CPHB YTD Report: 2019 Quarter 1; 1 4. The CPHB YTD Detail Report: 2019 Quarter 1;2 5. The SPD's Rules and Regulations and all amendments thereto; 6. The SPD's General Orders and all amendments thereto; 7. The SPD's Administrative Orders and all amendments thereto; 8. The SPD's Special Orders issued from January 1, 2018 to the present, and all amendments thereto." 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

Ms. Andrea Stone SPR19/1074 Page2 June 4, 2019 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). 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 .f or 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 the City's petition dated May 29, 2019 the City requests an "extension of time until June 25, 2019 to search for and furnish copies of any documents that may be responsive to [Attorney McFadden's] request." The City specifies the extension is being requested for documents responsive to section 8 of Attorney McFadden's request. The City explains that the work to be completed includes "[reviewing] approximately 1200 pages of records that may be responsive to this request." However, its response does not provide any additional information explaining the necessity of additional business days to respond. Therefore, I find the City has not established good cause to grant an extension of time under G. L. c. 66, § lO(c)(i)-(vi).

Ms. Andrea Stone SPR19/1074 Page 3 June 4, 2019 Conclusion Accordingly, I decline to grant the City an extension of time to produce records. The records must be provided consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). This office encourages the parties to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (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 municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Please note that a municipality may provide the requestor a timeframe not to exceed 25 business days from receipt of the request to produce responsive records. The requestor may also voluntarily agree to a timeframe beyond 25 business days for production of records. See G. L. C. 66, § lO(b)(vi). Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Attorney Daniel McFadden