Daniel I. Lampke v. Boston Water & Sewer Commission (SPR 20212487)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 30, 2021 SPR21/2487 Dolores Randolph Director of Communications Boston Water and Sewer Commission 980 Harrison Avenue Boston, MA 02119 Dear Ms. Randolph: I have received your petition on behalf of the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (Comission) requesting an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Comission furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On March 2, 2021, Attorney Daniel Lampke requested twelve categories of records that relate “to the water main break that occurred on April 14–15, 2020 at the intersection of Harrison Avenue and Perry Street in Boston’s South End neighborhood at approximately 500 Harrison Avenue.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR21/1009 Supervisor of Records Determination (April 30, 2021); SPR21/1859 Supervisor of Records Determination (August 4, 2021); and SPR21/1859 Supervisor of Records Determination (September 14, 2021). In my September 14th determination, I ordered the Commission to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Attorney Lampke with non-exempt portions of the records. Subsequently, the Commission petitioned this office seeking an extension of time to provide responsive records. 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: 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

Dolores Randolph SPR21/2487 Page 2 September 30, 2021 (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). 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). Extension of Time to Produce Responsive Records In an email to this office on September 22, 2021, the Commission requests that this office “grant the Commission a reasonable extension beyond the ten-day period prescribed by M.G.L. c. 66 § 10(c).” In a phone conversation with this office on September 28, 2021, a representative for the Commission clarified that the Commission seeks an extension of ten days. In its September 22nd email, the Commission states the following: Full compliance with the determination order . . . within the statutory period is a substantial undertaking, even considering that these same records have been reviewed for this request earlier this year. The Commission’s original privilege log for this request itemized 721 emails, and around 40 emails were redacted in some fashion and produced. As it stands, the Commission is short-staffed, and simply does not have the staffing or resources to delegate the request to another employee or allow the staff already working on this request to table other responsibilities in order to reproduce within ten days of September 14, 2021. The Commission has already started reviewing and compiling records for production, and it is clear that [the Commission will] need more time. While the documents have already been “collected” and “segregated,” they must still be reviewed again for redaction where absolutely necessary, and then packaged in some way for delivery to the requester. Lastly . . . fulfilling the original request took nearly a month, and the Commission produced responsive records on a rolling basis as efficiently as possible, and even

Dolores Randolph SPR21/2487 Page 3 September 30, 2021 obtained records from Imperia Engineering that were not in its possession specifically for production to this requester, in the interest of cooperation and transparency. To avoid further delays, the Commission is respectfully requesting the Supervisor of Records grant a formal and reasonable extension to the ten-day statutory period & order in its in camera determination so it can fully comp[ly] with this request. I find in light of the need to collect and segregate the requested records, as well as the capacity of the Commission to produce the request without an extension, and the efforts already undertaken by the Commission in fulfilling the current and previous parts of this request, the Commmission has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)- (ii). The Commission is granted an extension of 10 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Commission has established good cause for a time extension of 10 business days as described above. Please note, Attorney Lampke 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: Daniel Lampke, Esq.