Tom Moroney v. Medford, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20192543)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 2, 2020 SPR19/2543 Diane J. Caldwell Medford Public Schools 85 George P. Basset Drive Medford, MA 0215 5 Dear Ms. Caldwell: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Medford (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 December 19111 Tom Moroney requested records relating to "emails and any other correspondence about dyslexia or the dyslexia screenings, including any results" for students within the Medford Public Schools. As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). 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 ofa series ofrequests 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

Diane J. Caldwell SPR19/2543 Page 2 January 2, 2020 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 your petition you explain the City is seeking an extension of time to respond to the attached public records request. You indicate that school "staff have been on Christmas break since December 20 and will not be back until January 2, 2020." Further you indicate that to "collect this information [it] will take me more time." Conclusion The City is advised that under the Public Records Law, a municipal records access a officer must provide written response to the requester within ten business days ofreceipt of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b ). In this response the 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, in this case January 27, 2020. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vi). The requestor may voluntarily agree to· a response date beyond these timeframes. See id. Based on the information provided in the petition, it is unclear whether the City can provide responsive records within twenty-five business days of the receipt of the December 19111 2019 request as allowed in G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vi), or if the requestor agreed to a date beyond that timeframe. Also, the City has not explained how many responsive records exist nor described the scope of any potential redaction. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c )(i)-(ii). I understand a member of the Public Records Division contacted you but was unable to obtain a clarification regarding these matters. Therefore, I decline to grant the City's petition at this time. See G: L. c. 66 § lO(c) (i) (vi). The City is advised it must seek another petition for extension if it cannot provide responsive records within twenty-five business days of the receipt of the request or if Mr. Moroney does not agree to an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66 § lO(c). The City must re-submit such a petition within twenty business days after initial receipt of the request. Id. The City must provide a response ii1 a maimer consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. Mr. Moroney may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Diane J. Caldwell SPR19/2543 Page 3 January 2, 2020 Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Torn Moroney