Paul DeMeo v. Gardner, City of (SPR 20242301)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 21, 2024 SPR24/2301 Titi Siriphan City Clerk City of Gardner 95 Pleasant Street Gardner, MA 01440 Dear Ms. Siriphan: On August 14, 2024, this office received the petition of Attorney John Flick, of Flick Law Group, P.C., on behalf of the City of Gardner (City) 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Paul DeMeo. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 7, 2024 Mr. DeMeo requested: any proposal, agreement, contract, memorandum of understanding, letter of intent, or any other written record, whether executed or not, from any office or department of the City of Gardner (including anyone acting for or on behalf of the City of Gardner) to GAAMHA (including anyone acting for or on behalf of GAAMHA) having anything to do with any portion or aspect of the former Gardner Junior High School property on Waterford Street in Gardner – including but not limited to, the expenditure and/or reimbursement of any portion of the $550,000 which the city admits was expended by GAAMHA regarding such city property. 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

Titi Siriphan SPR24/2301 Page 2 August 21, 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 City request, “an extension of time to August 30, 2024.” In support of its request the City provides the following information: This Public Record request was duly sent to the City Clerk’s office which serves as the City’s Records Access Officer. The City Clerk is on a Family Medical leave of absence and will not return until mid-October. One of the Assistant City Clerk’s left her employment with the City on August 9, 2024. This leaves one Assistant Clerk and no other staff in the Clerk’s office. Furthermore, Department Heads who have responsive records are on vacation and unable to review their records to determine what responsive records they possess. Conclusion Based on the information provided in the City’s August 14th petition, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City’s extension request. In this case, 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).

Titi Siriphan SPR24/2301 Page 3 August 21, 2024 Please note, the requestor 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: Paul DeMeo