Melissa Hanson v. Worcester, City of - Law Department (SPR 20211305)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 1, 2021 SPR21/1305 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. On April 27, 2021, Melissa Hanson of MassLive, requested “[a]ll internal affairs records associated with [nine named police officers].” 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR21/0189 Page 2 June 1, 2021 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 May 25, 2021 petition, the City requests “… that the Supervisor grant the City of Worcester an extension of 30 business days to produce records responsive to Ms. Hanson’s request for public records.” The City indicates it “… provided the requester with a written response within 10 business days in accordance with the requirements of 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2)(b)… In its written response, due to the large volume of records requested the City stated that it would require an additional 15 business days as provided by statute.” The City explains “[r]ecords responsive to the request are not maintained electronically; in order to fulfill the request it was necessary to locate each paper file. The City has now located approximately 80 responsive files. These files have been scanned by administrative staff to permit review and disclosure.” Further, “[t]hese files may contain information exempt from disclosure and subject to redaction, including but not limited to names and personally identifying information of complainants and witnesses, names and personally identifying information of informants exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (f); home addresses of government employees/law enforcement exempt from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) through M.G.L. c. 66 §10B; social security number and driver’s license information, exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a); victim and witness names and personally identifying information exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) and (f); and information related to reports of domestic violence or sexual assault which the City is prohibited from disclosing pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4 § 7 cl. 26 (a) through M.G.L. c. 41 § 97D. Locating and redacting exempt information requires a careful line-by-line review of each record.” The City states that they are “acting in good faith to complete the tasks associated with responding to this request. However it is beyond the capabilities and resources of the City to assign an employee to work full-time on a single public records request. 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. Accordingly, it is necessary for the City to seek an extension of time to fulfill Ms. Hanson’s request.”

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR21/0189 Page 3 June 1, 2021 I find that in light of the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, the potential scope of redactions, as well as efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current request, 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 20 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Ms. Hanson’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Please note, Ms. Hanson 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), 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Melissa Hanson, MassLive