Gordon C. Andrews v. Halifax, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20201018)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 2, 2020 SPR20/1018 Charlie Seelig Town Administrator Town of Halifax 499 Plymouth Street Halifax, MA 02338 Dear Mr. Seelig: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Halifax (Town) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § 10(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. Specifically, Gordon Andrews requested: “access to the Zoning Boards & Planning Board records from January 1985 to December of 1993.” 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 § 10(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

Charlie Seelig SPR20/1018 Page 2 July 2, 2020 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). Please note, a business day does not include a weekday where a custodian’s office is unexpectedly closed. 950 C.M.R. 32.02. Current petition In its June 26, 2020 petition, the Town requests that this office deny Mr. Andrews’ request under 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(f), or, in the alternative, “that the Town be granted 60 days to hire sufficient [personnel] and review the materials in order to know what documents exist that Mr. Andrews has requested and have them available.” In support of its request for an extension of time, the Town explains that Mr. Andrews has requested to review 9 years of records, dating back over 30 years. The Town explains that “because of the age of these documents, the vast majority of these files are in the ‘vault’ in the basement of Town Hall” and would require transport and storage to be accessible for review. The Town additionally explains that producing records for the requested time period will require an extensive search of Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals files, as not all of the requested files are maintained chronologically. Based on the Town’s statements, I decline to grant its request to deny the request in its entirety, as the Town has not shown that the request is “part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass” as required by 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(f). I find that in light of the magnitude of the request and the inability of the Town to produce a response to this request without the extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). I hereby grant the Department an extension of 30 business days beyond the time allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Town is granted an extension of 30 business days to provide a response to the request. The response must be provided consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Additionally, the requestor -- may seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court under G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c).

Charlie Seelig SPR20/1018 Page 3 July 2, 2020 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Gordon Andrews