Lennon, Anastasia v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20262354)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 26, 2026 SPR26/2354 Daniel Glanville, Esq. Third Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield – Law Department 36 Court Street, Room 305 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Glanville: On June 23, 2026, 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); 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, Anastasia Lennon. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On May 22, 2026, Ms. Lennon requested the following: 1. Any and all policies, procedures, memos or guidance documents related to the Springfield PD’s use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) 2. Emails (and email attachments) containing any of the following terms (not case sensitive). Please exclude press releases. The date range for this part of the request is Jan. 1, 2026 to May 22, 2026: AI “artificial intelligence” GPT (should also include ChatGPT) GBT “OpenAI” “Draft One” Claude 3. Emails from addresses with the following domains: @email.openai.com; @email.anthropic.com. The date range for this part of the request is Jan. 1, 2026 to May 22, 2026. 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 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

Daniel M. Glanville, Esq. SPR26/2354 Page 2 June 26, 2026 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 (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 Request In its petition, the City requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: Given the enormity of this request, more than 3,000 documents that will require individual review for potential redactions in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, the city respectfully requests relief. The administrative burden presented in this matter, will delay the ability of the City to respond to this request in a timely manner. The City has effectively gathered responsive records, however, the subsequent review and redaction will be both a long and burdensome process. The City is committed to responding to this request but finds itself limited in responding while also managing many substantial and simple requests. I find that in light of the need to segregate and examine the records and the capacity of

Daniel M. Glanville, Esq. SPR26/2354 Page 3 June 26, 2026 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)(i)-(iv). 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. Please note, Ms. Lennon 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), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anastasia Lennon