Robert King v. Oxford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20240793)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2024 SPR24/0793 Michelle A. Jenkins Town Clerk Town of Oxford 325 Main Street Oxford, MA 01540 Dear Ms. Jenkins: On March 14, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Oxford (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Robert J. King. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 6, 2024, Mr. King requested the following records: [1] Any tax incentive program or TIP agreement the Town of Oxford has agreed to from January 1, 2010 to March 6, 2024 as well as any such predating agreement that is still in effect[;] [2] Any payment in lieu of taxes or PILOT agreement the Town of Oxford has agreed to from January 1, 2010 to March 6, 2024 as well as any such predating agreement that is still in effect[;] [3] Any labor contract or agreement between the Oxford Police Association and/or Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Local 173 that is currently in effect. 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; 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

Michelle A. Jenkins SPR24/0793 Page 2 March 19, 2024 (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 Town requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: [T]he public records response will require considerable coordination between staff members to identify the necessary record repositories and thoroughly review pertinent records covering nearly 15 years. … [T]he expansive review of files and extensive research required by our municipal staff will require extra time in addition to their day-to-day responsibilities. Currently, several of the staff members from the above-mentioned departments must devote a significant amount of time to the upcoming Town Meeting while working on their respective annual budgets, finalizing the administration of post- election state primary matters, and preparing for the upcoming Town Election. Furthermore, these staff members are actively working on a myriad of other requests for records presently. The original prescribed timeline for this new request will be difficult for our staff to properly fulfil the applicable requirements. In an email to this Division on March 14, 2024, Mr. King objects to the Town’s petition for an extension of time, arguing “it seems unreasonable for the RO to assert 30 days of extra time is required to even reply to the request....[T]he RO asserts that the request is expansive, but has made no contact with me prior to this petition to ask if [I] could narrow the scope of the

Michelle A. Jenkins SPR24/0793 Page 3 March 19, 2024 request…” In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Please note, Mr. King 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: Robert J. King