Brian DeLacey v. Malden, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252653)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2653 Joanne Perperian Public Records Access Officer City of Malden Office of the City Solicitor 215 Pleasant Street, Suite 420 Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: On September 8, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden, (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, Brian DeLacey, of Malden News Network. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 8, 2025, Mr. DeLacey requested the following records from June 6, 2025 to August 8, 2025: [1] [G]rant “applications” and/or proposals as well as award letters, rejection letters (denials of application for an reason) and/or other agreements, as well as any contracts, modifications and/or amendments in addition to budgets and or financial statements sought in connection with these public records; [2] [R]eports on progress of projects, as well as any correspondence or communications received, reviewed, submitted, or considered - including types described in the 5/20/25 “City of Malden News Flash” - for grants or funds described in that formal, public announcement; [3] [A]ny and all email communications or correspondence of any sort (including TEXT messages or other messaging applications for each of the identified documents and or other records identified in (1) and (2) above; [4] [A]ny email created, received, sent, shared, or deleted which relate to these grant applications and other records identified in (1) which have been created by or exchanged with [an identified] email address… e.g. “questions” (asked or answered), directions, referrals, guidance, decisions etc[;] 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2653 Page 2 September 12, 2025 [5] [A]ny other email using any combination of the words used in this description: “Grants funded through the Surrounding Community Agreement with Encore Boston Harbor[;]” [6] [A] complete extract of all records stored within “the City of Malden Participant Portal” as described on the MCCG-Page[;] [7] [A]ny contract, communications, including privacy policy reviews, or other payments or requests for payment by “Neighborly Software”, a company that appears to be the creator, licensor, and cloud provider of the “Malden Participant Portal” platform[;] [8] [A]ny records or recommendations, analysis, preference or priority created during any review of these grant applications, including any email, spreadsheet or other form of presentation or correspondence to evaluate, prioritize, describe, grade, score or recommend any application the amount of each and every request made and grant given[;] [9] [A]ny email received by or created by Mayor Gary Christenson from any hardware device and any messaging address he is known to use, whether that digital end point is owned by him on a personal basis or by the City of Malden or any other public source of funding. On August 14, 2025, Mr. DeLacey modified Items 3, 4, 5 and 9 to seek responsive records from “any email account City of Malden or privately created, cell phone whether owned by the City of Malden or privately owned to be searched for text, email and other media messaging applications used by these [four identified individuals].” Mr. DeLacey also included six “key search terms” for the responsive records. Please note that in an email to this Office on September 9, 2025, Mr. DeLacey objected to the City’s petition. 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;

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2653 Page 3 September 12, 2025 (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 requests “an additional 30 business days beyond the time specified under the statute (25 business days) for a total of 55 business days…” and provides the following additional information in support of its request: As of today, since the submission of this FOIA request on August 11, 2025, the City has received ten requests from Malden News Network and its associated individuals… A tremendous amount of time is spent receiving and processing public records requests from these Requestors. These requests are not only time-consuming, but far from harmless; they are negatively affecting the interests of other constituents who rely on the work of the City. Moreover, the City has other requests to fulfill from other Requestors. The records sought in the request need to be reviewed, and potentially redacted. For example, some of the records (W9’s) that have been produced to date require redactions in accordance with the exemption set forth at G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). … Records responsive to Requestors request will thus need to be reviewed and redacted to the extent they contain private email addresses and contact information and information concerning which are sensitive to them, such as home address, social security number, passport etc. Given the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the City submits that it is not

Joanne Perperian SPR25/2653 Page 4 September 12, 2025 reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days, or even within the additional days provided by the Requestor given the volume of the requests. Therefore, the City hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employees who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process have many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The City will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. I encourage Mr. DeLacey and the City to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. DeLacey 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: Brian DeLacey