Brad Petrishen v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20202046)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 29, 2020 SPR20/2046 Janice E. Thompson, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Worcester Law Department 455 Main Street, Room. 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). 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 September 23, 2020, Brad Petrishen requested “[c]opies of any and all internal affairs investigations into [an identified Worcester Officer], along with copies of departmental documents summarizing his history with the internal affairs department (commonly referred to by Massachusetts State police as concise officer histories).” On October 7, 2020, the City provided Mr. Petrishen a response. 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. 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR20/2046 Page 2 October 29, 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). Current Petition In a letter to this Office dated October 19, 2020, the City requests “that the Supervisor grant the City of Worcester an extension of 5 business days to produce records responsive to Mr. Petrishen’s request for public records.” The City notes “it has located approximately 8 files which may be responsive. These files have been scanned by administrative staff to permit review and disclosure. These files contain information exempt from disclosure and subject to redaction...Particularly with respect to complainants and witnesses, names and personally identifying information is woven throughout the narratives repeatedly in various forms, and the work necessary to protect the identities of these individuals is time-consuming and burdensome. On average it takes one hour per file to complete review and redaction of the records.” The City expressed “it is also currently in the process of completing work necessary to fulfill other large public records requests submitted by Mr. Petrishen (see City’s time petition filed with the Supervisor of Records on October 19, 2020).” The City posits “it is beyond the capabilities and resources of the City to assign an employee to work full-time to respond to the requests of a single public records requester. This would place an undue burden on the City and divert resources away from other essential municipal functions, including but not limited to the fulfillment of other public records requests.” The City adds, “although the public records law permits a ‘reasonable fee for the publication of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection’ M.G.L. c. 66 § 10(d), the City declined to petition the Supervisor of Records to assess fees for the search, review and segregation of records responsive to these request, and the City waived the fees associated with statutory redactions. Additionally, please be advised that the City is willing to work with the requester to modify and narrow the request.” Conclusion I find the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the City an extension of 5 business days to furnish copies of

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR20/2046 Page 3 October 29, 2020 records responsive to Mr. Petrishen’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Please note the requestor has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(4), l0A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Brad Petrishen