John Trask v. Department of Mental Health (SPR 20243395)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 24, 2024 SPR24/3395 Misael Garcia Records Access Officer Department of Mental Health 25 Staniford Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Mr. Garcia On December 19, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Mental Health (Department/DMH) 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 Department furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, John Trask. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 6, 2024, Mr. Trask requested “[a]nonymized data showing the distribution of durations of mechanical restraints within state psychiatric hospitals … from January 2020 to the present[.] Mr. Trask sought a further breakdown of the data for adolescent units (excluding months where policy prohibited use of mechanical restraints in adolescent units), adult continuing care units, and adult court evaluation units. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/3154 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 5, 2024). In my December 5th determination, I ordered the Department to provide a response to Mr. Trask’s request. Subsequently, the Department submitted the present petition on December 19, 2024. 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: 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

Misael Garcia SPR24/3395 Page 2 December 24, 2024 (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). 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 requests “an additional thirteen (13) business days to produce our response to Appeal SPR24/3154, for which the Office of the Secretary, Public Records Division issued a determination on December 5, 2024.” The Department further states: DMH will require additional time for leadership to review and approve the response. For the privacy breach, 959 individuals were affected and required an extensive reporting and notification process with narrow deadlines. DMH also has multiple non‐routine requests, including requests which have been appealed, which requires an approval process with multiple levels of review internally in DMH and externally in EHS. Additionally, the holidays prove difficult with staff availability to review records with adequate time and notice. Given these factors compounded by the holidays, it is unduly burdensome for DMH to complete the request within the time provided. This request, along with other nonroutine requests, which includes public records requests that have been appealed, must be reviewed internally in DMH through staff directors, DMH Legal Directors, General Counsel, Director of Communications and finally, the DMH Commissioner. Following this level of review, all state agencies are required to go through the executive agency level of review through similar staff positions at EHS, including EHS Legal and then EHS

Misael Garcia SPR24/3395 Page 3 December 24, 2024 Communications, and in some instances, the Governor’s Legal Office. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Department to produce the records without an extension, and efforts undertaken by the Department in fulfilling the current request, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Department is granted an extension of 10 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find that the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 13 business days. Please note, Mr. Trask 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: John Trask