Heather Hoffman v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20191996)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray S11pen1isor of Records October 4, 2019 SPR19/1996 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer Law Depaiiment Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Cambridge's Law Department (Depaiiment) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). The Depaiiment is also seeking to charge for segregation and redaction of the records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). As required by law, the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c), (d)(iv)(2). On September 16, 2019, Heather Hoffman requested copies of emails, correspondence, and any other public records relating to the Sullivan Comihouse. 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 b.een 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 paii of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and 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

Seah Levy, RAO SPR19/1996 Page 2 October 4, 2019 (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 requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). The Department is requesting an extension of time "due to the extensive volume both of hardcopy records to locate and digitize, the number of digital records requested, and the time involved to search, review, and segregate these records." The Depmiment states that the additional time is needed "given the volume of material that has been requested, the need for careful review before release of the records, and the potential for the contents of these records to require withholding or redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure under the public records law." I find the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time of 5 business days beyond the statutorily allowed 25 business days upon the receipt of payment for request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c)(i)-(v); see also G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vi) (a records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which it shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request). Petitionsfor ability to assess fees Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith

Seah Levy, RAO SPR19/1996 Page 3 October 4, 2019 representation by the municipality to comply with the request, the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction, segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour, and the amount of the fee is reasonable and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the I public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. Id. The Depa1iment is seeking permission to charge for segregation and redaction time at an hourly rate of $25.00 per hour. In a September 30, 2019 letter, the Depaiiment explains that "the generic nature of some of these search terms, and the number of mailboxes involved in these email searches, I anticipate the results of each of these searches will be over 10,000 emails, and potentially much larger. The City has found the need to redact or withhold a variety of types of emails in similar search." The Department asserts responsive information is necessary to be redacted pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), (d), (n), and (o). The Depatiment, citing Exemption (a), explains that the records involved are "Tax ID Numbers, checking account numbers, and routing numbers, often included in invoices or other financial records." The Department, citing Exemption ( c ), explains that the records involved are "Personnel records: project information is often mentioned in connection with employee reviews and rep01is." Also the records are "Medical Information: this information may be that of City of Cambridge Employees, or residents of the City of Cambridge." The Department, citing Exemption ( d), explains that the records involved are "Inter agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters regarding policy positions which are still being actively developed by City of Cambridge employees." The Department, citing Exemption (n), explains that the records involved are "Schematics, blueprints, and plans are occasionally included as attachments, that should be withheld pursuant to the public safety exemption." The Depaiiment, citing Exemption ( o ), explains that the records involved are "Home phone or personal cell phone numbers are occasionally mentioned by City employees who are working from home, or traveling to a meeting or work location." The Depaiiment explains that given the nature of the exempt information "the requested fee is necessary because this request caimot be 'prudently completed without the [review and redaction], and given that the fee is not intended to 'limit, deter or prevent access' to the requested records." I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the

Seah Levy, RAO SPRI9/1996 Page 4 October 4, 2019 responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction, segregation or by assessing a fee of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 5 business days as described above. Additionally, the Department's petition to assess fees for segregation and redaction of the records is granted at an hourly rate no more than $75.00 per hour. The Department is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with this determination, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. Ms. Hoffman may appeal the substantive nature of the Department's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~a~ Supervisor of Records cc: Heather Hoffman