Adam Nuñez v. Salem, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20253029)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 21, 2025 SPR25/3029 James F. Wellock, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Salem, Legal Department 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney Wellock: On October 16, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Salem (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, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Adam Nunez. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 30, 2025, Mr. Nunez sought “any physical mail or email sent to or from [a City representative] . . . that contains the words [‘]fusion center[’] or [‘]Fusion Center[’][.]” In making his request, Mr. Nunez specified that he was seeking records from “the dates of June 27, 2024 to July 1, 2024[.] In an email to this office on October 20, 2025, Mr. Nunez objected to the City’s petition. Petitions 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; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from 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

James F. Wellock, Esq. SPR25/3029 Page 2 October 21, 2025 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the City seeks an additional 20 business days to respond to the request and provides the following information in support of its request: Nature of records and need for review and redaction: The nature of the request is the emails of [a City representative]. By the nature of this position, every page will need to be examined and reviewed for applicable redactions as it is anticipated that any records found may contain information which would fall under Exemption A or C, (G.L. c 4, sec. 7, cl 26 (a) (statutory exemption) or (c) (privacy exemption) the disclosure of which would be unlawful. Capacity: There is only one attorney available to do this work and due to other obligations of the office he has only limited capacity to review these records. Additionally, this is the City of Salem in October, and our staff is beyond capacity with the many October-related happenings in the city which has delayed the gathering of these records for review. At present I do not have a document and page count for this request-- I will share that information as soon as I have it. In light of the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure as well as the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(ii)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 20 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days.

James F. Wellock, Esq. SPR25/3029 Page 3 October 21, 2025 Please note, Mr. Nunez 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: Adam Nunez