Todd Wallack v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20212738)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 2, 2021 SPR21/2738 Seah Levy, RAO Office of the City Clerk City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack of WBUR appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 4, 2021, Mr. Wallack requested copies of documents related to the Cambridge Police Department and misconduct investigations. The City provided a response on October 18, 2021 which stated “[t]he City is unable to produce any records because your request does not reasonably describe the records sought, as required pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). You may re-submit your request with a clearer description of the records you are requesting.” Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2738, was opened as a result. Current Appeal In his October 19, 2021 appeal petition, Mr. Wallack expresses “[t]he City rejected my request for records on Oct 4. I have tried in good faith to work with the City, repeatedly revising my request at the City's suggestion to make it easier to retrieve the records. I am happy to revise my request again. But I am unclear what the City wants.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). 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

Seah Levy, RAO SPR21/2738 Page 2 November 2, 2021 In a response to Mr. Wallack on September 15, 2021, the City provided a fee estimate to a prior request for records and appeal with this office. See SPR21/1893 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 12, 2021). The September 15th response explained, “the City hereby provides you with the below-outlined cost estimate for search time expenses, postage fees, and per page copying fees associated with responding to your request.” Mr. Wallack made the revised request on October 4th in response to the September 15th fee estimate requesting “[c]opies of any documents showing the names of sworn officers within the Cambridge Police Department who [identified officers] recall were fired, terminated, resigned, retired as a result of a misconduct investigation since January 1, 2010. Alternatively, if it is easier, [the City] could also satisfy this request by providing a list of the officer names.” The City further explained in the October 18th response to Mr. Wallack that “[u]ndertaking a response in the manner requested is not required under the Public Records law. In Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. Ct. No. 1784CV02087, the court found that ‘[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.’ The request itself must indicate the records to be provided.” Conclusion Based on the forgoing, I find it is unclear what specific records Mr. Wallack is requesting. Mr. Wallack may wish to modify or clarify his request to the City in order to provide the sufficient particularity needed in order to search the City’s records. Specifically, he may wish to provide the City with specific records related to officers “fired, terminated, resigned, retired as a result of a misconduct investigation since January 1, 2010.” G. L. c 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Wallack wishes to submit another public records request to the Wallack as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, he may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, ~ - ·· o ./? lJ' - - ~ - ~ . , , Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Wallack, WBUR