Cassandra Dumay v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20250754)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 21, 2025 SPR25/0754 Justin P. Morin Public Records Coordinator City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 305 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Mr. Morin: On March 18, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Springfield (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, Cassandra Dumay, of the Boston Globe. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 18, 2025, Ms. Dumay requested “...[a]ll communications from Springfield City Council, Mayor’s Office and all city departments...sent to the Office of Internal Audit between January 1, 2020 and today in response to the requests for information.” Subsequently, the City required additional information and on February 25, 2025, Ms. Dumay clarified her request for “...[e]mail threads between any city employee and [identified individuals] between 1/1/2020 and 2/18/2025 containing keywords ‘report’ and ‘theft’ or ‘report’ and ‘abuse’.” 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; 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

Justin P. Morin SPR25/0754Page 2 March 21, 2025 (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 requests “a 30-day extension to the statutory time limits to furnish copies of public records in response to public record request No. 25-544” and provides the following information in support of its request: [T]he City’s Information Technology Department has conducted and transmitted 1,837 emails and file attachments that must be reviewed for relevancy and redacted. Once relevant emails have been compiled, they must be reviewed for exempt information including information related to the identities of complainants, and sensitive data of specifically named individuals as required by M.G.L. ch. 4, section 27(c). [T]he City’s Public Records Division has a reduced number of available staff due to a position vacancy and 151 open public record requests at various stages of processing. The number of records that must be reviewed for relevancy and redactions is abundant and contains sensitive data that must be redacted or withheld as required by the public records law. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days.

Justin P. Morin SPR25/0754Page 3 March 21, 2025 Please note, Ms. Dumay 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: Cassandra Dumay