Bradford Matthews v. Amesbury, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20222218)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 6, 2022 SPR22/2218 Amanda Haggstrom City Clerk City of Amesbury 62 Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Haggstrom: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Amesbury (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On September 16, 2022, and September 19, 2022, Bradford Matthews requested various records “relating to the parcels in Cynthia Road or Cynthia Lane that are referenced in Bill 2022-087.” 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: (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

Amanda Haggstrom SPR22/2218 Page 2 October 6, 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its September 29, 2022 petition, the City states that “this request resulted in [the City’s] IT department locating over 1,000 emails that will need to be reviewed for any possible redactions. This is just the email portion of the request, they also requested numerous other types of documents.” The City also indicates that it has provided a fee estimate to Mr. Matthews, and states that the City “estimated to the requestor that it will take [the RAO] close to 24 hours uninterrupted to go through all 1,000 emails.” The City “expect[s] that there will be emails that will need to be redacted due to attorney client privilege.” The City’s petition further explains that the RAO also serves as the City Clerk and Elections Official, and argues that the RAO “absolutely cannot comply with this request, while performing [her] normal job duties and preparing for an important State Election.” In an email to this office on September 29, 2022, Mr. Matthews expresses his opposition to the City’s petition, and contends that the request “is a very time-sensitive matter” and that it is needed “in time to address that Bill’s imminent vote by the City Council on or around October 25th, 2022.” The City and Mr. Matthews are advised that in accordance with 950 C.M.R. 32.06 (4)(e), an extension of time for a municipality “may not exceed 30 business days from the date of the grant of the extension by the Supervisor.” In an email to this office and Mr. Matthews on October 3, 2022, the City clarified that it seeks an extension “to November 23rd, 2022.” Please note that an extension of 30 business days will be to November 21, 2022. Based on the City’s petition, I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, and the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above.

Amanda Haggstrom SPR22/2218 Page 3 October 6, 2022 Please note, Mr. Matthews 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(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bradford Matthews