Stephen Voltz v. Gloucester, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20210596)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 18, 2021 SPR21/0596 Charles J. Payson, Esq. City of Gloucester, Legal Department City Hall 9 Dale Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Dear Attorney Payson: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Gloucester (City) requesting an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On February 12, 2021, Stephen Voltz requested: “All Audits, evaluations or other reports from Municipal Resources, Inc. and/or any other entity concerning the Gloucester Police Department, or any employee or former employee of the Gloucester Police Department, which audit, evaluation or report was created any time after January 1, 2009.” Subsequent to the opening of this petition, Mr. Voltz sent a response to this office on March 15, 2021, that addresses the City’s petition. 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 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

Charles J. Payson, Esq. SPR21/0596 Page 2 March 18, 2021 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). Current Petition In its March 11, 2021 petition, the City requests an extension of time beyond the statutory ten day response time. The City indicates that due to the “potentially broad scope of the request, the magnitude of potential documents, and the other responsibilities of the Gloucester Police Department” the City seeks an “extension of 60 business days” to respond to this request. The City indicates that redactions may be needed for “reports of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence” and “criminal offender record information” pursuant to G. L. c. 41 s. 97D and G. L. c. 6, s. 167, respectively. In addition, the City also indicates that responsive records will need to be reviewed for Exemptions (c) and (f). The City explains “Mr. Voltz is potentially requesting all internal affairs reports from both other entities and the Gloucester Police Department itself over a twelve year period” and the task required to respond include “hand searching, compiling, reviewing, segregating, redacting and scanning these documents.” The City also notes it “may also assess fees depending on scope of the request.” The City is advised, in order to assess a fee for the requested records, it must demonstrate it provided a response in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). I find that in light of the need to search for and collect the records, the potential scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). I hereby grant the City an extension of 30 business days beyond the time allowed in G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Charles J. Payson, Esq. SPR21/0596 Page 3 March 18, 2021 Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. This office encourages Mr. Voltz and the City to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Please note, Mr. Voltz may seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Stephen Voltz