Katherine Stathulis, Esq. v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231502)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 7, 2023 SPR23/1502 Alexandra Hayden Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Hayden: On June 29, 2023, this office received your petition on behalf of the Chelmsford Police Department (Department) seeking 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. Id. On May 25, 2023, Katherine Stathulis, Esq., of The Center for Public Interest, Advocacy, and Collaboration, requested the following records via the Muckrock platform: [1.] An extract of your records management system or database that includes each school-related arrest and each referral to law enforcement conducted during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school year (up until the day the records are produced)… [2.] If such an extract of the database in question 1 is not possible, please provide school incident reports on each school-related arrest and referral to law enforcement conducted during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021- 2022, and 2022-2023 school year (up until the day the records are produced)… [3.] A copy of any active standard operating procedures developed with the police department and/or other law enforcement agencies regarding police placement or activity in your corresponding school… [4.] Any records instructing or informing police personnel of, or otherwise describing data reporting requirements and procedures for complying with G.L. c. 71 § 37P(b)… [5.] The cost to the school district of assigning school resource officer to each school… [6.] The total number of school resource officers and total number of guidance counselors for each school in your district for school years 2018-2019, 2019- 2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023… [7.] The total number and a brief description of 911 calls from schools in your 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

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/1502 Page 2 July 7, 2023 district to local police department conducted during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023… [8.] A description of the proposed budget for mental, social, or emotional health support personnel for the school district. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1314 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 29, 2023). In my June 29th determination, I found it remained unclear whether the Department provided a response to Attorney Stathulis’ May 25, 2023, request. Accordingly, I ordered the Department to provide Attorney Stathulis with a response to her request. The Department subsequently petitioned this office with respect to assessing fees and seeking an extension of time to produce public records and this petition, SPR23/1502, was opened as a result. Current Petition In its June 29th petition, the Department indicates that it was not made aware of Attorney Stathulis’ request until it was notified by this office of the opening of the appeal, SPR23/1314. The Department further explains: Please note that as the records access officer for the department, this is the first time I have received and reviewed this request, I do not have prior knowledge of it. At no point did ‘Muckrock’ or the requestor reach out to the department directly to notify or confirm that the request was received. Furthermore, the attachments provided by the requestor also show the request status as “awaiting acknowledgment” which supports that we did not receive this request originally. Neither the Chelmsford Police Department nor the records division currently use ‘Muckrock’ as an acceptable means of Record Requests, nor do we have an active account on the platform. It should be noted we do not monitor this platform, nor do we receive notifications from it or subscribe to its services. At this time, we take requests in the following formats: Phone, email, written, and FOIA direct platform. All of these request formats are accepted through the records division of the police department, and I am notified directly. 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;

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/1502 Page 3 July 7, 2023 (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). 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) must 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, the Department seeks “a time extension of an additional twenty (20) business days” to respond to Attorney Stathulis’ request. In support of its petition, the Department states: The request itself is broad and covers multiple years, and various schools in town, therefore, a copious number of documents will need to be searched, compiled, segregated, and redacted. Furthermore, the documents included in this request regard juvenile arrest and disciplinary records. As always, the Chelmsford police records division attempts to complete records requests to the best of its ability and acknowledges the expectation of privacy for the juveniles and staff involved. …. The extension would give the department a total of twenty (20) business days to satisfy the request as the information is sensitive and will need to be reviewed by multiple people on our staff before dissemination. I find the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). I hereby grant the Department an extension of 20 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Attorney Stathulis’ request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c).

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/1502 Page 4 July 7, 2023 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). 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 – Municipalities 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 2 (two) 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). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/1502 Page 5 July 7, 2023 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, the Department requests “permission to charge Katherine Stathulis a fee for the responsive documents.” In addition to redactions required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the Department states that “[r]edactions will be necessary based upon the following public records exemptions” which the Department specifies includes but is not limited to: Exemption ([c]): … [T]he content contained in the request is exempt information from being a public record or the law prohibits the information being released to the public (i.e., personal phone numbers, emails, addresses, etc. of staff and students). This information would directly violate exemption [c] based on privacy thus being redacted. Exemption ([f]): … The information in this request is complex in nature and will need to be carefully reviewed and approved before dissemination to ensure it does not compromise investigative efforts. Furthermore, any demographic information of an officer (i.e., race, eye color, etc.) could deter any future police investigation such as ‘plain clothes’ investigation ‘Precursory drug sweeps’, or ‘undercover’ work by departmental employees as their identities would then be known or easily identifiable. I find the Department has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, it is my determination that given the nature of the requested records and the explanation in its petition, the Department is permitted an extension of 20 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Attorney Stathulis’ request. Further, the Department is permitted to charge for time spent segregating and redacting the requested records. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Department to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Attorney Stathulis 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), l0A(c).

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/1502 Page 6 July 7, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katherine Stathulis, Esq.