Somerville City Hall 2009 AAB complaint & related correspondence

To Architectural Access Board:

Pursuant to the state Freedom of Information Act, G.L.M. c.66, §10, we hereby request the following records:

A copy of any Architectural Access Board complaint(s) submitted between January 1, 2003 and June 30, 2011 regarding the Somerville City Hall facility, 93 Highland Avenue, Somerville, MA; plus, any AAB decisions related to such complaint(s).

The requested documents may be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and are requested in the process of news reportage and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, we would be grateful if you would inform us of the total charges in advance of fulfilling our request. We prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if possible, or by CD-ROM if not.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. We look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Somerville residents through Community Access Project

Hi,

My client, Eileen Feldman, just wanted to make sure that the documents
in her request for "Somerville City Hall 2009 AAB complaint & related
correspondence" would be provided in an accessible format in
compliance with Section 508 before submitting the requested payment.

Thanks,

Michael

Thanks for your response, but we're asking that documents, when maintained in digital format, be provided in a digital format. Providing printouts reduces these documents accessibility for, as one example, individuals with reduced vision.

In addition to accessibility concerns, the Commonwealth's Supervisor of Public Records has previously ruled that providing paper copies of electronic documents instead of digital copies is an effective "denial of this right to meaningful access".

For reference, please refer to the fifth page of this release:

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/massachusetts-1/log-of-2010-2011-public-records-request-appeals-1383/#413352-responsive-documents

We again reiterate our request that, when possible, electronic documents be released digitally, and ask you to confirm which documents will be released in paper format and which as electronic.

Thanks again!

Michael

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 27, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

Hi I was wondering what happened to this further clarification of September 5:

Thank you, MuckRock, for this follow-up; and thanks to the DPS for agreeing to provide the responsive documents electronically.

1. However, please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but it seems that we still don't have any assertion that we will receive the native (accessible) electronic files, since scanned image .pdfs can also be saved to a CD. If MuckRock finds it appropriate: we request that the DPS Counsel kindly explicitly assert that any documents which were generated in electronic format by the AAB (certainly any documents generated between 2003 and 2011) will be delivered in native electronic accessible format on the CD.

2. Prior to paying $60.00 for an estimated "three hours of search and segregation," for documents that are entirely within the public's purview regarding a Massachusetts City's architectural access-related correspondence with the State, we request a more detailed explanation of how this estimate was arrived at. We note the SOS' Public Records Guide which states, " A records custodian may charge and recover a fee for the time he or she spends searching, redacting, photocopying and refiling a record. Since a records custodian must maintain all records in an orderly fashion, a records custodian may not recover fees associated with record organization."

a. Regarding search: We've requested the AAB's files on Somerville's City Hall and asked for the correspondence relevant to any complaint on that facility limited to 2003- 2011.
b. If the three hours is based on legal review, please provide a more detailed explanation of what would require redaction.

It is our understanding that, other than personal email addresses, which should be eligible for retraction and would be at the top of any emailed correspondence; or personal mailing addresses- but only if the Complainant has explicitly requested removal of such- nothing in the Complaints are subject to redaction. We note the following language, copied from the AAB's Building Complaint form: "Please be advised that this form is a matter of public record and will be disclosed upon request."

Similarly, regarding State, City and outside consultant's technical/expert evidence and correspondence on matters of architectural accessibility for a City Hall, what would be subject to redaction?

We look forward to the DPS' response to help us understand the estimated cost of $60 for search and segregation. Upon receipt of this explanation, we look forward to mailing a check promptly for these public records.

Thank You,
Eileen Feldman, Director
Community Access Project

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 27, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on June 27, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.