Grzonka, Barbara v. Dartmouth, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261568)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1568 Nicole Perullo Records Access Officer Dartmouth Police Department 1390 Tucker Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Perullo: On April 27, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dartmouth Police Department 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, Barbara Grzonka. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 25, 2026, Ms. Grzonka requested, “[p]olice reports, and logs whenever a call was made to Southcoast Behavioral Health Hospital located on Faunce Corner Road from 2015 to 2020[.]” On March 27, 2026, Ms. Grzonka modified her request, seeking “[j]ust the 110 reports from 2015 to 2020 whenever a call was made to Southcoast Behavioral Health Hospital located on Faunce Corner Road.” 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; (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 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

Nicole Perullo SPR26/1568 Page 2 April 28, 2026 (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 Town requests “a single extension of up to 30 business days[,]” and provides the following in support of its request: ... We cannot complete the request within 25 business days following our initial receipt because the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of our department due to the magnitude or difficulty of the request. We have found 110 (one hundred and ten) reports responsive to this request that will need extensive segregation and redaction. It is necessary to determine which available exemptions could apply based upon a review of the reports. It is likely that at least some portions of the reports are subject to one or more exemptions under the Public Records Law including exemption (c) for privacy for information like social security numbers, telephone numbers, juvenile information, and license numbers, exemption (f) for witness information or victim information, and exemption (a) for CORI, domestic violence, and sexual assault and therefore will be withheld, in whole or in part. .... There is good cause to grant this single extension based upon the following factors: a. The department has determined that each report requires approximately 30 minutes to properly segregate and redact. Most of the reports identified to date consist of multiple pages and contain a significant amount of sensitive or prohibited information. Given the nature of this material, each report must be carefully segregated, redacted, and reviewed by multiple personnel within the department to ensure accuracy and compliance. b. The scope of the redaction required. The department relies on multiple personnel to ensure that information is accurately and appropriately redacted from the reports. This process requires coordination among

Nicole Perullo SPR26/1568 Page 3 April 28, 2026 several clerks to perform the redactions, detectives to verify CORI status, and a crime analyst to compile and provide the complete list of requested reports. c. The capacity or normal business hours of operation of the department. The personnel required to fulfill this request maintain varying work schedules and are not consistently available to the clerks responsible for processing it. The clerks qualified to handle this request are scheduled for 35 hours per week. The primary clerk assigned to this task has already exhausted her allotted overtime hours. Additionally, other essential staff members may be unavailable due to scheduled vacation or sick leave. The department has found that due to these reports involving a medical facility with private medical information the segregation and redaction process is taking on average 30 minutes. The personnel required for this effort have numerous responsibilities during their regular work hours. In particular, the clerks are responsible for processing an average of 30 requests per week, managing complex payroll for 88 employees, handling accounts payable, and performing various additional administrative duties. d. The department now estimates that fulfilling this request will require a minimum of 55 hours for segregation and redaction. This represents a significant increase from the original estimated timeframe of 19 hours. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure and the capacity of the Department to produce the request without the extension, the Department has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Department is granted an extension 30 business days. Conclusion As described above, I find the Department has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Please note, Ms. Grzonka 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: Barbara Grzonka