Mike Reinders v. Boston, City of - Law Department (SPR 20201096)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 10, 2020 SPR20/1096 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Plaza, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Boston (City) requesting an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Specifically, on June 19, 2020, Michael Reinders, requested various “records from the SouthEnd Landmarks district commission…” 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. 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1096 Page 2 July 10, 2020 G. L. c. 66, § 10(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). In its July 6, 2020, petition, the City requests “the Supervisor to permit the City additional time needed to comply with [this] request.” The City explains “additional time is needed to review and respond by providing not only written meeting minutes but also any existing recordings of those meetings as well as other records.” It is unclear why additional time is needed beyond the time allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi), which provides that a municipality may provide a timeframe not to exceed 25 business days to produce responsive records. 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). Accordingly, I find the City has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of time. Conclusion In light of the above, the City’s petition for an extension of time cannot be granted at this time. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Thomas Reinders