Fatema Ahmad v. Boston, City of - Law Department (SPR 20201158)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 20, 2020 SPR20/1158 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 25, 2020, Fatema Ahmad requested records concerning “partnerships between the Boston Police Department and the following organizations: United Somali Youth and North American Family Institute. This includes any correspondence regarding the ‘Youth and Police Initiative Plus’ program funded by the Department of Homeland Security, as well as any potential expansions of that program within schools and any new applications for funding (e.g. to the Department of Homeland Security’s Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention program).” Ms. Ahmad notes, “[w]e seek responsive documents within the time period of February 1, 2019 to the date this request is completed.” 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 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 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. SPR20/1158 Page 2 July 20, 2020 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 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).

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1158 Page 3 July 20, 2020 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 10, 2020, petition, the City requests “the Supervisor to permit the City additional time needed to comply with [the] request.” However, it is unclear why this request requires additional time beyond the statutory allotment. In its petition, the City requests “the Supervisor to permit the City of Boston to assess a fee for the search, review, and segregation of records responsive to [the] request.” The City explains, “responsive records are likely to contain attorney-client privileged communications...Responsive records may contain information that discloses medical information regarding specifically identified persons. Responsive records may contain other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Responsive records may contain information disclosing the identity of voluntary informants or ongoing investigations. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c), (f).” Although the City states “portions of records responsive to [the] request may contain information that is exempt from disclosure,” it has not provided information regarding what records it intends to produce and why such records are likely to contain exempt information. Conclusion I find that in light of the lack of explanation in the City’s petition, the City has not

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR20/1158 Page 4 July 20, 2020 established good cause to warrant an extension of additional time to respond to this request. With respect to the City’s petition to assess fees, I find the City has not met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. Please note, however, this does not preclude the City from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the City is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The City must provide a response to Ms. Ahmad within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Fatema Ahmad