Andrew Quemere v. Worcester, City of - Law Department (SPR 20211464)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 16, 2021 SPR21/1464 Janice E. Thompson Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Ms. Thompson: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of the requested public record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the City provided a copy of the petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). In two requests received by the City on May 12, 2021 Andrew Quemere requested the complete interal affiars files for two specified individuals. 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 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 SPR21/1464 Page 2 June 16, 2021 The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requester within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition Citing both a “large volume of records and the work required to fulfill the request” the City seeks an “extension of 30 business days to produce records responsive to Mr. Quemere’s requests for public records.” The City argues that given that the records “are not maintained electronically; in order to fulfill the request it [is] necessary to locate each paper file.” The City states that these “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.” Given these exemptions the City contends that a “careful line-by-line review of each record” will be required for each of the “37 responsive files.” Aditionally, the City explains that it “acting in good faith to complete the tasks associated with responding to these requests. 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. Please note that the City, including the Police Department, is currently managing and responding to 383 records requests, fulfilling the vast majority without requesting time extensions.” In light of its pettion, I find that the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. Conclusion Accordingly, I grant the City an extension of 30 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Mr. Quemere’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). The City is advised it must provide the records in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Mr. Quemere 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).

Janice E. Thompson SPR21/1464 Page 3 June 16, 2021 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Quemere