Joshua Dankoff v. Brockton, City of (SPR 20212985)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 16, 2021 SPR21/2985 Allison M. Cogliano, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Brockton 45 School Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Cogliano: I have received your petition on behalf of the Brockton Police Department (Department) requesting an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Joshua Dankoff of Citizens for Juvenile Justice. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In a letter dated October 25, 2021, Mr. Dankoff requested 8 categories of records concerning the Department. 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

Allison M. Cogliano, Esq. SPR21/2985 Page 2 November 16, 2021 Petition to Assess Fees A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Allison M. Cogliano, Esq. SPR21/2985 Page 3 November 16, 2021 A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition dated November 9, 2021, the Department seeks permission “…to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting pursuant to G.L. c. 66, §10(d)(iv).” The Department notes the “…request will take a great deal of time for the [Department] to complete. Specifically, in response to just part 6 of the request, each gang affiliated individual is given a system number which the [Department] would need to search separately and would need to create a spreadsheet containing the requested information.” The Department estimates that “[t]his would take approximately 10 minutes per individual (300 minutes or 5 hours). Further, in order to produce copies of records on each school-related arrest for three years, as requested in party 7, it would require approximately 7 minutes per report to redact information pursuant to the following: 1. Privacy information exempt from public record pursuant to MGL. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), MGL.c. 214, § 1B, MGL c.93H, i.e. social security numbers…and 2. Information properly withheld pursuant to MGL c. 4, § 7(26)(a), including MGL 6, § 167 (C.O.R.I.) and MGL c. 41, § 97 (juveniles).” Further, the Department contends that “[t]his request is particularly lengthy and extremely burdensome on the everyday operations of the Brockton Police Department and Law Department and will take the above-mentioned time and likely more in order to compile and truly ensure adequate response. As such, the City submits this petition for an extension of thirty (30) days to comply.” Conclusion Given the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the requested records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records cannot be granted. However, this does not preclude the Department from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. With respect to time, I find 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 30 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Mr. Dankoff’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Allison M. Cogliano, Esq. SPR21/2985 Page 4 November 16, 2021 When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the Department is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor detailing why the amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The Department must provide a response to Mr. Dankoff within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Mr. Dankoff may appeal the Department’s fee estimate within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. Dankoff 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: Joshua Dankoff