Taylor Campbell v. Boston, City of - Law Department (SPR 20201099)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 9, 2020 SPR20/1099 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Boston (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. In a letter dated June 18, 2020, Taylor R. Campbell requested: 1. All communications between the Boston Police Department and the United States Department of Justice from June 8, 2020 to June 18th, 2020, inclusive of both dates. 2. All communications between the Boston Police Department and the United States Department of Justice about Attorney General William Barr's June 18, 2020 visit to the Boston Police Department, including his meeting with Boston Police Commissioner William Gross. 3. All communications, memoranda, calendar items, agendas, notes, or other records within the Boston Police Department about Attorney General Barr’s June 2018, 2020 visit to the Boston Police Department, particularly including records in preparation for his meeting with Commissioner Gross and notes made at or after the meeting, and records about any other activities Attorney General Barr undertook during his visit. Petition 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 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. SPR20/1099 Page 2 July 9, 2020 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). 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). Petition to Assess Fees 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, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1099 Page 3 July 9, 2020 redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petitions relating to fees must be submitted to the Supervisor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Current Petition In its July 6, 2020 petition, the City requests “the Supervisor of Records to permit the City additional time to process [the] request.” The City indicates, “[r]esponsive records are likely to contain attorney-client privileged communications.” However, it is unclear why this request requires additional time beyond the statutory allotment. The City’s petition requests that the Supervisor “permit the City to assess a fee for the provision of records responsive to [the] request.” The City states that “[w]hile the hourly rates of department personnel required to review the responsive records will likely exceed the $25.00 hourly rate, I do not petition the Supervisor here for an hourly rate that is in excess of $25.00 per hour.”

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1099 Page 4 July 9, 2020 Conclusion I find that in light of the lack of explanation in the City’s petition, the City has not established good cause to warrant an extension of additional time to respond to this request. Based on the petition provided to this office by the City, it appears that Mr. Campbell’s request was submitted on June 18, 2020. Given that this petition was submitted after the ten business days from the date of the request had elapsed, it is unclear whether the City has submitted a timely fee petition. Consequently, I am unable to opine on the City’s petition to charge fees at this time. 950 C.M.R.32.06(4)(g). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Taylor R. Campbell