Patrick Higgins v. Greenfield, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20240035)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 11, 2024 SPR24/0035 Kathryn J. Scott City Clerk City of Greenfield 14 Court Square Greenfield, MA 01301 Dear Ms. Scott: On January 4, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Greenfield (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Patrick Higgins. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On December 14, 2023, Mr. Higgins requested “a copy of all executive session minutes of the City Council for calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 and all open session minutes, whether draft or accepted of the city council that are not posted.” 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. 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

Kathryn J. Scott SPR24/0035 Page 2 January 11, 2024 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its January 2, 2024 petition, the City requests “permission from [the Supervisor of] Public Records to extend this request as shown on the attached and notified to the requester to extend the requests due date January 24, 2024.” In a December 21, 2023 email to Mr. Higgins, included with its petition, the City indicates that it requires additional “time in order to allow [City] staff to compile the records [Mr. Higgins] requested.” Conclusion In light of the City’s December 21st and January 2nd emails, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City’s extension request, because the City intends to provide responsive records within twenty five (25) business days of the receipt of the request, as allowed in G. L. c. 66 § 10(b)(vi). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe for producing records not to exceed 25 business days following initial receipt of the request). In multiple emails to the City, and in an email to this office on January 4, 2024, Mr. Higgins raises several issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. If unresolved issues remain, I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the Open Meeting Law issues. Please note, Mr. Higgins 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).

Kathryn J. Scott SPR24/0035 Page 3 January 11, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kathryn J. Scott