MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Shawn Cole v. Revere, City of - Police Department (SPR 20201205)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency must provide records · Filed 07-17-2020

ClosedTime PetitionPetitioner Won

SPR 20201205 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Shawn Cole concerning records held by Revere, City of - Police Department, opened 07-17-2020. Type: Time Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency must provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20201205
Case Type
Time Petition
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Shawn Cole
Custodian
Revere, City of - Police Department
Date Opened
07-17-2020
Date Closed
07-24-2020

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 24, 2020 SPR20/1205 Lieutenant John Azzari Revere Police Department 400 Revere Beach Pkwy Revere, MA 02151 Dear Lieutenant Azzari: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Revere Police Department (Department) 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 Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Shawn Cole. Id. In a letter dated June 30, 2020, Mr. Cole requested, “all public records on every officer who is shown in the video, including but not limited to names, badge numbers, dates of employment, all complaints that have been filed against all of them, and the complete disciplinary reports on all of them.” 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 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

Lieutenant Azzari SPR20/1205 Page 2 July 24, 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 requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Petitions 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). 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

Lieutenant Azzari SPR20/1205 Page 3 July 24, 2020 ($.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 15th petition, the Department estimates “that the total cost to search, segregate, redact, photocopy, and re-file responsive documents for [the] public records request is $1,393.20. The estimated time to complete this request is approximately 20 hours at a rate of $69.66 per hour (20 hours x $69.66): $1,393.20.” The Department explains “[t]his fee was calculated using the hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the search and task, which is a Captain.” Although the Department states, “[t]his fee was calculated using the hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill to complete the search and task”, it has not provided information regarding what records it intends to produce and why such records are likely to contain exempt information. Further, in its July 15th petition, the Department requests the Supervisor of Records to permit the Department additional time to process Mr. Cole’s request. The Department indicated “[they] have already exceeded the free 2 hours and sent the requestor the first portion of the request.” However, it is unclear whether this request requires additional time beyond the statutory allotment. Conclusion I find that in light of the lack of explanation in the Department’s petition, the Department has not established good cause to warrant an extension of additional time to respond to this request.

Lieutenant Azzari SPR20/1205 Page 4 July 24, 2020 With respect to the Department’s petition to assess fees, I find the Department 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 Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department 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 Department must provide a response to Mr. Cole 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: Shawn Cole