Kevin Beaudoin v. Fitchburg, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20220571)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 16, 2022 SPR22/0571 Vincent P. Pusateri II, Esq. City Solicitor 128 Prichard Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Dear Attorney Pusateri: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Fitchburg (City) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records requested by Kevin Beaudoin. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). In this matter, Mr. Beaudoin requested, “GPS monitoring locations for the following City of Fitchburg DPW vehicles with the municipality license plate M98-837 M6325a M92-962 M82-686 for the time frame November 29, 2021 through February 22, 2022.” Petitions for relief from obligation to provide public records 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

Vincent P. Pusateri II, Esq. SPR22/0571 Page 2 March 16, 2022 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) 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). Current Petition In its petition, dated March 8, 2022, the City states, “[p]lease accept this correspondence a petition from relief of the City’s obligation to produce records pursuant to M.G.L. c 66 sec. 10 (c). As you will see, the request does intimidate and harass a particular employee of the municipality and there is also no evidence to support a finding that the information requested is intended for broad dissemination to the public about actual or alleged governmental activity. In support of this request I would submit the allegations below.” The City indicates that the requestor “…is an employee of the municipality’s Department of Public Works. The requestor was placed on administrative leave on February 3, 2022…The requestor’s request seeks information regarding the where and when a particular employee for the DPW might be working. Specifically they are requesting GPS location information of motor vehicles typically operated by a certain employee (Attachment ‘B’) and have requested a number of time cards including that other particular employee evidencing where a particular employee is working. (Attachment ‘C’).” In addition, “[t]he requestor was the supervisor of the employee and would have knowledge of which vehicles the employee was operating.” The March 8th petition notes, “[t]he employee filed a complaint against the requestor with the Human Resources Department, stating that he is in fear of the requestor physically harming him or his family, based upon alleged statements made by the requestor to other co-workers about the employee. One of the alleged threats involved ‘[Requestor] having people taking care of [employee] while at a work site.’ The Department of Human Resources escalated the complaint and investigation to the municipal Police Department. The Police Department did not find that criminal activity had occurred.” Based on the information provided in the March 8th petition, it is not clear that this is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that do not relate to a government activity as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion In light of the above, I cannot grant the City’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records at this time. Please note, this office may deny an appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or

Vincent P. Pusateri II, Esq. SPR22/0571 Page 3 March 16, 2022 assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Kevin Beaudoin