Matthew Robin v. Methuen, City of - Police Department (SPR 20212521)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 7, 2021 SPR21/2521 Brittany Gretchell Methuen Police Department 90 Hampshire Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Brittany Gretchell: On September 30, 2021, I received your petition on behalf of the Methuen Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, the Department furnished a copy of their petition to the requestor, Matthew Robin. Id. On September 20, 2021, Mr. Robin requested: 1. A spreadsheet, e.g., Microsoft Excel, or other flat file format, e.g., Comma-separated Values (CSV) or Tab-separated Values (TSV), containing the following fields of data for all personnel employed by the Methuen Police Department: a) Employee Identification number b) Last Name c) First Name d) Badge number e) Rank f) Status (i.e, "active" or "suspended with pay") g) Date the individual joined the Methuen Police Department 2. A spreadsheet identical to that generated in response to the first part of this request with the same information as of January 1st of each year dating back to 2010. 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: 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

Brittany Gretchell SPR21/2521 Page 2 October 7, 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). 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) must 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 September 30th petition, the Department “respectfully seeks an additional thirty (30) business days in which to furnish responsive documents.” The Department expressed that “…employee records extend over multiple computer systems for the 11 + year time frame of [the] request; and MPD employs approximately 150 employees per year for the subject time span.” The Department posits that “[r]esponding to [the] request will accordingly require a substantial expenditure of staff time in pulling responsive material and compiling the information into an accessible electronic format.” The Department notes,“[f]or the reasons stated by the MPD, including the large number of employee files extended over multiple computer systems covering over 11 years, and the anticipated substantial expenditure of time to review those files, locate and copy responsive material into an accessible electronic format (approximately 150 hours, an average of one hour per file), the MPD respectfully submits that good cause under 950 CMR 32.06(4) supports MPD's timely petition for an extension.” Conclusion I find that in light of the above, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the Department an extension of

Brittany Gretchell SPR21/2521 Page 3 October 7, 2021 30 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Mr. Robin’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Please note, Mr. Robin 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, ~ - · . ~ ' I - . . '. . I . . ' Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Robin