Julie Ahern v. Watertown, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20230166)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 2, 2023 SPR23/0166 Janet M. Murphy City Clerk City of Watertown 149 Main Street Watertown, MA 02472 Dear Ms. Murphy: I have received your petition on behalf of the City of Watertown (City) seeking relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). On December 18, 2022, Julie Ahern-Pugliese requested “all of the referenced ‘...unopened certified letters...’ public records,” referring to a previous letter she received from the City. Petitions for an Extension of Time, Relief from the Obligation to Provide 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

Janet M. Murphy SPR23/0166 Page 2 February 2, 2023 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 Relief In its petition, the City “requests relief from the barrage of Public Records Requests coming from one resident.” In support of its request, the City provides information concerning its previous correspondence with Ms. Ahern-Pugliese. On March 19, 2021, Ms. Ahern-Pugliese requested “…all public information regarding how the Town calculates [Ms. Ahern-Pugliese’s] water and sewer bills during the years, 2013 to 2021.” On September 17, 2021, and again on January 30, 2022, she sent nearly identical requests. In its appeal petition, the City explains that “in the past, when documents were mailed to [Ms. Ahern-Pugliese], per her request, ... she would reject delivery of the documents and then start the request all over again.” The City further explains that since 2021, the City has “been informing Ms. Ahern-Pugliese that the documents are available for her to pick up from [the Clerk’s] office at City Hall during regular business hours.” The City goes on to explain that “Ms. Ahern-Pugliese’s subsequent requests have been for [the City] to mail the documents to her.” Specifically, in a letter dated October 27, 2021, the City advised Ms. Ahern-Pugliese that 124 pages of records responsive to her request are available for pick up at City Hall. In a July 10, 2022 letter, Ms. Ahern-Pugliese requested that the responsive records be mailed to her. In August 2022, the City attempted to reach Ms. Ahern-Pugliese by telephone multiple times in order to coordinate delivery of the requested records, but was unable to reach her. On August 12, 2022, the City sent her a letter by certified mail again attempting to coordinate delivery of the responsive records, but this letter was returned to the City unopened on October 3, 2022. In September 2022, the City coordinated with attorneys from this office, and this office mailed copies of the responsive records to Ms. Ahern-Pugliese. Those records were then returned to this office. On December 18, 2022, Ms. Ahern-Pugliese requested “all of the referenced ‘...unopened certified letters...’ public records,” referring to the letters and records the City has already attempted to deliver to her.

Janet M. Murphy SPR23/0166 Page 3 February 2, 2023 As explained above, both the City and this office have attempted to deliver the responsive records to Ms. Ahern-Pugliese. Additionally, the City has explained in multiple communications, that the responsive records remain available for Ms. Ahern-Pugliese to pick up at City Hall. Conclusion Where the City has made the records available to Ms. Ahern-Pugliese, and the records remain available for her to pick up at City Hall, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City’s petition seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records at this time. However, please note, this office may deny a future appeal if, in the opinion of the Supervisor of Records, the request is designed or intended to harass, intimidate, or assist in the commission of a crime. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Julie Ahern-Pugliese