Corey Spaulding v. Natick, Town of (SPR 20192302)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 19, 2019 SPR19/2302 Kathleen Lentini Information/Communication Officer Records Access Officer Town of Natick 13 East Central St. Natick, MA 01760 I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Natick (Town/Natick) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). Specifically, on October 8, 2019, Corey Spaulding requested fotir categories of records including "[a]ll emails sent by Corey Spaulding for the months of March-December, 2014." 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). 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

Kathleen Lentini SPR19/2302 Page 2 November 19, 2019 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 requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In its petition, the Town requests "a finding that the Public Records Request described above is frivolous and/or harassing, as the request is not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about any actual or alleged government activity." The Town claims "Natick and Ms. Spaulding have been engaged in an ongoing and highly adversarial battle over the Public Records Law and Ms. Spaulding's repeated public records requests to Natick, whether the municipal or school side. Natick has expended countless hours, resources, and energy on responding to Ms. Spaulding's requests. Here, she seeks copies of all emails she sent to Natick in March through December of 2014." The Town explains "Natick should not be required to retrieve and return her own emails back to Ms. Spaulding. She is the best person to determine what emails she has sent to Natick during that time period, and the obligation to give them back to her should not rest on the public fisc. As a result, such a request is and should be deemed frivolous and/or harassing.". As noted above, Ms. Spaulding's October gth email sought four categories ofrecords. I understand the Town provided a response to Ms. Spaulding on October 23, 2019 that addressed each category of the requested records. In addition, as described in the Town's October 23rd response, the Town has previously responded to requests from Ms. Spaulding, including those dated September 1, 2019, September 8, 2019, and September 9, 2019. I further understand that this petition relates solely to the first category of requested records, specifically "[a]ll emails sent by Corey Spaulding for the months of March-December, 2014." Whereas this request seeks records that Ms. Spaulding generated, it does not appear that this request was intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity. I find that in light of the fact that Ms. Spaulding's October gth email seeks four categories ofrecords, along with the Town's petition that explains that the responsive records are Ms. Spaulding's own emails, the Town has met its burden to establish that this request is "part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous ... and the request[] [is] not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity"

Kathleen Lentini SPR19/2302 Page 3 November 19, 2019 as required by G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). See SPRl 7/1282 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 21, 2017). Conclusion For the reasons described above, I grant the Town's request for relief of its obligation to provide records responsive to the first category of Ms. Spaulding's request. Please note that the requestor has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ lO(c), lOA(c)-(d). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Corey Spaulding Karis L. North, Esq.