Communications leading up to and on June 26 encampment sweep (Salem Police Department)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, I hereby request the following records:

From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

In particular, the communication records of:

Salem Chief of Police Lucas J. Miller, Captain John Burke, and the Community Impact Unit of the Salem Police Department

Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff Lisa Peterson, Constituent Services Director Julio Mota, and Neighborhood Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart of the Salem Mayoral Office

Director of DPS Raymond Jodoin, Principal Account Clerk Brooke Coleman, and General Foreperson Katherine Nieman of the Salem Department of Public Services

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as we believe this request is in the public interest, as suggested but not stipulated by the recommendations of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and is not made for commercial usage.

I expect the request to be filled in an accessible format, including for screen readers, which provide text-to-speech for persons unable to read print. Files that are not accessible to screen readers include, for example, .pdf image files as well as physical documents.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

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

Sincerely,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law:

I would still request, limited to the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment that is commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

In particular, I am requesting the communication records of:

Salem Chief of Police Lucas J. Miller, Captain John Burke, and the Community Impact Unit of the Salem Police Department

Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff Lisa Peterson, Constituent Services Director Julio Mota, and Neighborhood Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart of the Salem Mayoral Office

Director of DPS Raymond Jodoin, Principal Account Clerk Brooke Coleman, and General Foreperson Katherine Nieman of the Salem Department of Public Services

I would request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as this request is in the public interest. I am a journalist that has reported about the ‘South River encampment’ in the past for local papers such as the Daily Item, and the information requested is intended to be used journalistically in a story surrounding the dispersal of the encampment and the community members affected. I do believe this request is in the public interest, as suggested but not stipulated by the recommendations of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and will not be made for commercial usage.

I expect the request to be filled in an accessible format, including for screen readers, which provide text-to-speech for persons unable to read print. Files that are not accessible to screen readers include, for example, .pdf image files as well as physical documents.

In the event that there are still fees or fees change, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you for your response. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days from the initial receipt of my request, in the time stated to be needed as the statue requests.

Sincerely,
Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

I sent this exact follow up below on 11/08/2024 in mail to the Salem Police Department through Muckrock, in response to your follow up sent on 11/01/2024. I wanted to be sure it reached your email as well. If there will be any fees required, I would appreciate if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of filling the request.

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law:

I would still request, limited to the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment that is commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

In particular, I am requesting the communication records of:

Salem Chief of Police Lucas J. Miller, Captain John Burke, and the Community Impact Unit of the Salem Police Department

Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff Lisa Peterson, Constituent Services Director Julio Mota, and Neighborhood Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart of the Salem Mayoral Office

Director of DPS Raymond Jodoin, Principal Account Clerk Brooke Coleman, and General Foreperson Katherine Nieman of the Salem Department of Public Services

I would request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as this request is in the public interest. I am a journalist that has reported about the ‘South River encampment’ in the past for local papers such as the Daily Item, and the information requested is intended to be used journalistically in a story surrounding the dispersal of the encampment and the community members affected. I do believe this request is in the public interest, as suggested but not stipulated by the recommendations of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and will not be made for commercial usage.

I expect the request to be filled in an accessible format, including for screen readers, which provide text-to-speech for persons unable to read print. Files that are not accessible to screen readers include, for example, .pdf image files as well as physical documents.

In the event that there are still fees or fees change, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you for your response. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days from the initial receipt of my request, in the time stated to be needed as the statue requests.

Sincerely,
Adam Nuñez

To Whom It May Concern:

It is now December 3, 2024, 20 business days since I received a request for an extension from the Salem Police Department on November 1, 2024 concerning my original request made October 18, 2024. In that response, the City said it estimated I'd be receiving a response within 20 business days of the December 3, 2024 response date. I wanted to check in on that request.

I understand your response would potentially include a further estimation of fees. However, I would request that fees be waived as this request is in the public interest. I am a journalist that has reported about the ‘South River encampment’ in the past for local papers such as the Daily Item, and the information requested is intended to be used journalistically in a story surrounding the dispersal of the encampment and the community members affected. I do believe this request is in the public interest, as suggested but not stipulated by the recommendations of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and will not be made for commercial usage.

Please let me know if more information is needed regarding my public records request originally made October 18, 2024. Thank you.

From,

Adam Nuñez

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Massachusetts Public Records Law request, copied below, and originally submitted on Oct. 18, 2024. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

Dear Supervisor of Records,

On 10/18/24, I filed a public records request regarding particular communications surrounding a particular decision between the Salem Police Department, Salem Public Works, and Salem Mayor's Office.

On 11/01/24, I received an acknowledgment of this request from the Salem Police Department. The acknowledgment claimed it intended to fulfill the request within 20 business days of the initial receipt of my request, making the expected date to receive a response on or before 12/03/24. The response from Assistant City Solicitor James Wellock requested, but did not stipulate, modifications, as well as a response from myself on whether I would be accepting them, along with the proposed, estimated fees associated with my original request sent 10/18/24.

After receiving this acknowledgment, I responded to the Salem Police Department on 11/08/24, as was requested by Mr. Wellock in the 11/01/24 acknowledgment. I sent the same response to the acknowledgment on 11/20/24, as I am new to using MuckRock’s services and wanted to make sure it was seen. On the due date for the request of 12/03/24, I sent another reminder to the Salem Police Department in hopes of receiving a response. After not receiving a response within the given time of 20 business days in violation of Massachusetts Public Records Law, I sent another follow-up 12/04/24.

To date, I have yet to receive any response from the Salem Police Department regarding a response to my public records request that was due 12/03/24. I am appealing to receive a satisfactory response to my public records request originally sent 10/18/24 to the Salem Police Department.

Thank you for your assistance. All documents in support of my appeal have been publicly kept on MuckRock.com and are linked below. Please let me know if any more information is needed.

Link to documents: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/salem-88/communications-leading-up-to-and-on-june-26-encampment-sweep-salem-police-department-174691/

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Supervisor of Records,

Hello. I hope you had a nice holiday.

On October 18, 2024, I filed a public records request regarding particular communications surrounding a particular decision between the Salem Police Department, Salem Public Works, and Salem Mayor's Office.

On November 1, 2024, I received an initial response from the Salem Police Department, in which an estimated fee of $350 was proposed, along with requested modifications to my request.

On November 8, 2024, I responded to the Salem Police Department, at the time choosing not to modify the request. I identified myself as “a journalist that has reported about the ‘South River encampment’ in the past for local papers such as the Daily Item” with the records requested being “intended to be used journalistically in a story surrounding the dispersal of the encampment and the community members affected.”

PUBLIC INTEREST

The Supervisor of Records may approve an agency’s fee petition “if the supervisor of records determines that (A) the request is for a commercial purpose; or (B) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency or municipality to comply with the request, the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction, segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour and the amount of the fee is reasonable and the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records” provided however that the Supervisor of Records “consider[s] the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records,” according to G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

I would note that this request is not for a commercial purpose, and there is a significant public interest in these records as they pertain to the treatment of homeless individuals and their inevitable interaction with public spaces. These records benefit the public by promoting transparency and accountability in public officials who oversaw the notorious homeless encampment being removed from public grounds on June 26 in Salem, Massachusetts. It goes without saying, the populations most affected by this action, as well as most invested in these records, would never be able to afford their release if held under the proposed estimated fees of $350 dollars.

REDUCING SCOPE

In the Salem Police Department’s November 1 response, a request to modify my original request was made. While at the time I had denied, in the interest of both lowering potential fees and lessening the burden of the records’ custodian, I would like to modify my request to just email communications, given the City’s admission of text messages and faxes being harder to search for.

LACK OF CLARITY IN FEE ESTIMATE

As stated above from G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), the fee must be “necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction, segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour”

In their November 1 response, the Salem Police Department responded: “Preliminary good faith estimates of the cost: As explained above we are still evaluating your request. Our best estimate for costs at this time based on the current request is approximately four to six hours to search emails. The city does not have a fax archiver. We are presently evaluating our ability to search text messages. Review for redaction of these records would be estimated preliminarily to be ten hours. For a cost total of sixteen hours. At a rate of $25 per hour, with two-hours free, we presently estimate your cost to be $350.”

The City estimates an approximate 4 to 6 hours to search emails and 10 hours for redactions. Given all requested records are likely stored electronically, this should limit the search, as well as redaction time significantly. All records requested are straightforward emails, leaving many that should not and would not contain sensitive information. The records have already been limited to specific individuals most likely to have been involved. Given all this, it is unclear why the Salem Police Department would need 16 hours at $25 an hour to complete this request.

As said above, all records requested are straightforward emails, leaving many that should not and would not contain sensitive information, as was the given reason for the redactions cited by the Salem Police Department in their November 1 response.

As was written in the Salem Police Department’s November 1 response under “scope of review and redaction”: “every page applicable 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 C, (G.L. c 4, sec. 7, cl 26(c) (privacy exemption) the disclosure of which would be unlawful.”

As the Supervisor of Records found in a similar appeal to the Massachusetts State Police on March 25, 2024 (attached as March25Appeal), even if departments “explained that redactions are necessary” based on “Exemptions (b), (c), (f) and/or (n),” a lack of clarity when considering the “segregation or redaction” of records “under the cited exemptions” would not alone allow for a fee to be assessed by an agency. The fee still needs to be thoroughly explained in the context of whatever Exemption is being attached to it. Given this, I am unsure how Exemption C, given by the Salem Police Department, could require the amount of hours requested currently.

This was corroborated in the attached March 25 appeal to the Massachusetts State Police, “See G. L. c. 66, § l0(d)(iii) (a fee shall
not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or
redaction is required by law for Exemption (a) or attorney-client privilege or approved by the
Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)).”

Given the lack of clarity on the reasoning for these fees, I would request they be waived or reduced, especially considering their strong claim to being within the public’s interest. All files in support of my appeal have been publicly kept on MuckRock.com and are linked below. Thank you for your time.

Link to documents: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/salem-88/communications-leading-up-to-and-on-june-26-encampment-sweep-salem-police-department-174691/

From,


Adam Nuñez

Dear Supervisor of Records,

Hello. Happy New Year’s Eve.

Yesterday afternoon (12/30), I received a supplementary written response addressed to myself from Mr. Wellock in regard to my open fee appeal, numbered SPR24/3443. I have copy and pasted his response directly below for ease on access.

-

“On December 19, 2024 the Supervisor of Records issued a determination of your appeals numbered SPR 24/3298 and SPR24/3274. I am aware of an additional appeal filed on 12/27/24, numbered SPR24/3443 appealing the fee estimate.

I write to provide a supplementary response.

Several departments of the City of Salem each received an identical public records request from you through the Muckrock.com entity, which were received as follows:

Salem Police - Received 10/21/24

Salem Mayor's Office - Received 11/7/2024

Salem Public Works - Received 11/12/24

Though they arrived at each department many days apart, for fee calculation and logistical purposes, Salem is treating these duplicate requests collectively as one public records request because they request the same records and are from the same requestor.

The response and fee estimate that I provided on November 1, 2024 of $350 is for all of these (identical) requests collectively.

As I understood this request at the time initially made, you sought copies of all communications ("all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications") sent or received by eighteen persons from June 8 to June 27, 2024. Those eighteen persons are identified in your request as:

Lucas Miller, Chief of Police
Captain Juhn Burke, Salem Police
All [nine] members of the Salem Police Community Impact Unit
Dominick Pangallo, Mayor
Lisa Peterson, Mayor's Office
Julio Mota, Mayor's Office
Lori Stewart, Mayor's Office
Raymond Jodoin, DPS
Brooke Coleman, DPS
Katherine Nieman, DPS

Though the original public records request states that it is about or on a particular topic, the request for records is much broader than just that those communications about the topic because the request states it is for all communications "Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment . . .".

In response, I suggested on 11/1 that this request be narrowed by keyword searches to limit the volume and narrow the scope of the request to only those communications on the topic inquired about. But, on 11/8 you rejected that suggested modification. You have not paid the fee estimate.

On December 19, 2024 the Supervisor of Records issued a disposition closing the December 9, 2024 appeal (SPR24/3274 & SPR24/3298).

On December 27, 2024 you emailed the Supervisor of Records an appeal (docketed as SPR24/3443) stating that you now wish to modify your request to "just email communications" and also you are appealing the 11/1 fee estimate.

Incorporating your modification of "just email communications" does not reduce the fee estimate that was provided on 11/1 because, as stated then, that estimate was provided specifically for the email portion of the request and not for all the other mediums of communication requested as we were investigating whether and to what extent those mediums could be centrally searched and produced from or whether they would need to be hand-gathered on individual bases, etc.

Your request is now: "all email communications" sent or received by the eighteen people listed above for the twenty days of June 8 to 27, 2024.

Logistically, there are two separate email servers that will have to be searched (salem.com and salempd.net). The resulting population of records to be reviewed and produced will more likely than not include emails that do not pertain to the topics you reference in your request but will instead include all the other emails on matters handled by email by these eighteen folks for those 20 days. The scope of responsibilities of these eighteen folks includes other things besides the topic for which you are inquiring as they are the chief of police and members of the police department's community impact unit, the mayor and his staff, and the department of public works director and some members of his staff all of whom handle many other matters on a daily basis that are sensitive in nature. For such a broadly defined request, there will likely be voluminous email attachments. It is more likely than not that these emails will include information for which one or more exemptions to the public records law applies, including Exemptions A (required by law) and C (privacy exemption) and so the review and redaction of this voluminous request will be time consuming.”

-

Upon receiving Mr. Wellock’s clarification, I acknowledge the 11/1 fee estimate of $350 as corresponding to all three agencies and appreciate the City of Salem’s streamlining of the process. I would just note, that as the request is for communications both “within and in-between” the three agencies, while the requests made are identical, each agency would presumably not be turning in identical responses as each body, I presume, has had communications amongst themselves within their own agencies surrounding the corresponding records that would not apply to a request that simply requested communications “in-between” each agency. This request is both an inter-agency and intra-agency request.

As Mr. Wellock notes above, it was suggested by Salem on 11/1 “that this request be narrowed by keyword searches to limit the volume and narrow the scope of the request to only those communications on the topic inquired about,” a request I had originally rejected on 11/8.

While I continue to reject the suggested modification of a key word search, I did not intend to reject a narrowing of the scope of the request “to only those communications on the topic inquired about” in my 11/8 response.

As it is further stated above, “Though the original public records request states that it is about or on a particular topic, the request for records is much broader than just those communications about the topic because the request states it is for all communications ‘Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment’

In my original 10/18 request, I requested, “From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.”

This request clearly states the only communications being requested from the 18 named individuals are communications regarding the sweep of the South River encampment, including adjacent attempts from the same Police Department to sweep the same encampment just weeks before on June 13 and June 21, reasonably assumed as the opening attempts of an encampment removal process that was finally completed on June 26, 2024, as well as the decision to reveal the encampment sweep date and time to the Boston Globe the day before on June 25.

As the City of Salem is claiming “the request for records is much broader than just those communications about the topic because the request states it is for all communications ‘Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment’ as a cited reason for the current fee estimate, I would like to clarify my request below:

From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

Given this clarification to my original request may be seen as a modification to my original request considering the current stance of the City of Salem, I would request fees be reevaluated by the City on this new understanding, if not outright waived or reduced.

I would also note that while the Exemptions A and C have been cited as justification by Mr. Wellock for segregation and redaction of the records requested, in lieu of receiving a specific estimate on the specific number of documents necessary for the City to comb through, it is still currently unclear why the estimate of 10 hours for redactions was made.

As most emails from the two email servers being searched relating to my request are presumably in email threads that are on the subject of the South River encampment, that should significantly reduce the strain on the City to search “emails that do not pertain to the topics [referenced] in [the] request but will instead include all the other emails on matters handled by email by these eighteen folks for those 20 days.” I do not doubt this as well would take significant time, even if just a cursory glance is necessary to search emails in clearly unrelated email threads, but a minimum of 4 hours to do so would be a more understandable timeframe for this segregation of records if the amount of corresponding documents was made known prior to the redaction of those records, content notwithstanding.

While I do not doubt there are a significant amount of corresponding records for 20 days of communications from 18 City officials on a specific event, I would still request Mr. Wellock clarify the specific amount of documents made necessary from my records request to segregate and redact that denotes a “voluminous request [that] will be time consuming” in the interest of clarifying the necessity of the proposed fee estimate.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

Unsure if this was CC'd. MuckRock hasn't figured that one out yet.

In response to your response yesterday:

Dear Supervisor of Records,

Hello. Happy New Year’s Eve.

Yesterday afternoon (12/30), I received a supplementary written response addressed to myself from Mr. Wellock in regard to my open fee appeal, numbered SPR24/3443. I have copy and pasted his response directly below for ease on access.

-

“On December 19, 2024 the Supervisor of Records issued a determination of your appeals numbered SPR 24/3298 and SPR24/3274. I am aware of an additional appeal filed on 12/27/24, numbered SPR24/3443 appealing the fee estimate.

I write to provide a supplementary response.

Several departments of the City of Salem each received an identical public records request from you through the Muckrock.com entity, which were received as follows:

Salem Police - Received 10/21/24

Salem Mayor's Office - Received 11/7/2024

Salem Public Works - Received 11/12/24

Though they arrived at each department many days apart, for fee calculation and logistical purposes, Salem is treating these duplicate requests collectively as one public records request because they request the same records and are from the same requestor.

The response and fee estimate that I provided on November 1, 2024 of $350 is for all of these (identical) requests collectively.

As I understood this request at the time initially made, you sought copies of all communications ("all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications") sent or received by eighteen persons from June 8 to June 27, 2024. Those eighteen persons are identified in your request as:

Lucas Miller, Chief of Police
Captain Juhn Burke, Salem Police
All [nine] members of the Salem Police Community Impact Unit
Dominick Pangallo, Mayor
Lisa Peterson, Mayor's Office
Julio Mota, Mayor's Office
Lori Stewart, Mayor's Office
Raymond Jodoin, DPS
Brooke Coleman, DPS
Katherine Nieman, DPS

Though the original public records request states that it is about or on a particular topic, the request for records is much broader than just that those communications about the topic because the request states it is for all communications "Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment . . .".

In response, I suggested on 11/1 that this request be narrowed by keyword searches to limit the volume and narrow the scope of the request to only those communications on the topic inquired about. But, on 11/8 you rejected that suggested modification. You have not paid the fee estimate.

On December 19, 2024 the Supervisor of Records issued a disposition closing the December 9, 2024 appeal (SPR24/3274 & SPR24/3298).

On December 27, 2024 you emailed the Supervisor of Records an appeal (docketed as SPR24/3443) stating that you now wish to modify your request to "just email communications" and also you are appealing the 11/1 fee estimate.

Incorporating your modification of "just email communications" does not reduce the fee estimate that was provided on 11/1 because, as stated then, that estimate was provided specifically for the email portion of the request and not for all the other mediums of communication requested as we were investigating whether and to what extent those mediums could be centrally searched and produced from or whether they would need to be hand-gathered on individual bases, etc.

Your request is now: "all email communications" sent or received by the eighteen people listed above for the twenty days of June 8 to 27, 2024.

Logistically, there are two separate email servers that will have to be searched (salem.com and salempd.net). The resulting population of records to be reviewed and produced will more likely than not include emails that do not pertain to the topics you reference in your request but will instead include all the other emails on matters handled by email by these eighteen folks for those 20 days. The scope of responsibilities of these eighteen folks includes other things besides the topic for which you are inquiring as they are the chief of police and members of the police department's community impact unit, the mayor and his staff, and the department of public works director and some members of his staff all of whom handle many other matters on a daily basis that are sensitive in nature. For such a broadly defined request, there will likely be voluminous email attachments. It is more likely than not that these emails will include information for which one or more exemptions to the public records law applies, including Exemptions A (required by law) and C (privacy exemption) and so the review and redaction of this voluminous request will be time consuming.”

-

Upon receiving Mr. Wellock’s clarification, I acknowledge the 11/1 fee estimate of $350 as corresponding to all three agencies and appreciate the City of Salem’s streamlining of the process. I would just note, that as the request is for communications both “within and in-between” the three agencies, while the requests made are identical, each agency would presumably not be turning in identical responses as each body, I presume, has had communications amongst themselves within their own agencies surrounding the corresponding records that would not apply to a request that simply requested communications “in-between” each agency. This request is both an inter-agency and intra-agency request.

As Mr. Wellock notes above, it was suggested by Salem on 11/1 “that this request be narrowed by keyword searches to limit the volume and narrow the scope of the request to only those communications on the topic inquired about,” a request I had originally rejected on 11/8.

While I continue to reject the suggested modification of a key word search, I did not intend to reject a narrowing of the scope of the request “to only those communications on the topic inquired about” in my 11/8 response.

As it is further stated above, “Though the original public records request states that it is about or on a particular topic, the request for records is much broader than just those communications about the topic because the request states it is for all communications ‘Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment’

In my original 10/18 request, I requested, “From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, all email, phone, text, fax, and any other applicable digital, written, or recorded communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.”

This request clearly states the only communications being requested from the 18 named individuals are communications regarding the sweep of the South River encampment, including adjacent attempts from the same Police Department to sweep the same encampment just weeks before on June 13 and June 21, reasonably assumed as the opening attempts of an encampment removal process that was finally completed on June 26, 2024, as well as the decision to reveal the encampment sweep date and time to the Boston Globe the day before on June 25.

As the City of Salem is claiming “the request for records is much broader than just those communications about the topic because the request states it is for all communications ‘Including, but not necessarily limited to, all applicable communications surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment’ as a cited reason for the current fee estimate, I would like to clarify my request below:

From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

Given this clarification to my original request may be seen as a modification to my original request considering the current stance of the City of Salem, I would request fees be reevaluated by the City on this new understanding, if not outright waived or reduced.

I would also note that while the Exemptions A and C have been cited as justification by Mr. Wellock for segregation and redaction of the records requested, in lieu of receiving a specific estimate on the specific number of documents necessary for the City to comb through, it is still currently unclear why the estimate of 10 hours for redactions was made.

As most emails from the two email servers being searched relating to my request are presumably in email threads that are on the subject of the South River encampment, that should significantly reduce the strain on the City to search “emails that do not pertain to the topics [referenced] in [the] request but will instead include all the other emails on matters handled by email by these eighteen folks for those 20 days.” I do not doubt this as well would take significant time, even if just a cursory glance is necessary to search emails in clearly unrelated email threads, but a minimum of 4 hours to do so would be a more understandable timeframe for this segregation of records if the amount of corresponding documents was made known prior to the redaction of those records, content notwithstanding.

While I do not doubt there are a significant amount of corresponding records for 20 days of communications from 18 City officials on a specific event, I would still request Mr. Wellock clarify the specific amount of documents made necessary from my records request to segregate and redact that denotes a “voluminous request [that] will be time consuming” in the interest of clarifying the necessity of the proposed fee estimate.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Supervisor of Records,

I received a response on 1/3 from Mr. Wellock in regard to my modification made on 12/31. I will copy and paste below.

-

"Thank you for forwarding the email you sent to the Supervisor or Records on December 31, 2024 to me. In that email you modified your request to now read:

"From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024."

The capabilities of our email systems include the ability to search based on metadata fields sender, recipient, and date; and we can search for keywords in the subject field or email body. It does not include the ability to search by topic. It does not include whether the email is sent within or between departments. That is why we typically utilize keyword search functionality. I understand that you have rejected that suggestion. Our ability to identify the records you are requesting is frustrated by this technological limitation. If you were to proceed with your modified request, we would be pulling all of the emails sent or received limited by date, sender and recipient, and that would be an over-inclusive search result compared to what you described in your request. Then, we would need to review those emails for redaction.

Additionally, your 12/31 modified request has greatly expanded the search parameters. The 11/1 fee estimate was based on searching the eighteen sender / recipient email addresses. Your 12/31 modification expands this to three whole departments of email addresses. This greatly expands the scope of the search, which will increase staff time performing the searches, will increase the search result volume, and then the time spent reviewing those results for redaction. I doubt this was intended because you requested a restriction by topic, which is not within our capabilities. Let us know if you wish to proceed with your request as modified on 12/31, and we will reassess the fee estimate (but understand it would be an increase).

Otherwise, we will await the Supervisor's disposition on the original fee estimate appeal."

-

I thank him for his timely response, as well as his identification of a broadening of my request in my modification that I did not intend. It was a simple copy and paste error, apologies for that!

To clarify, I am requesting:

From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

In particular, the communication records of:

Salem Chief of Police Lucas J. Miller, Captain John Burke, and the Community Impact Unit of the Salem Police Department

Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff Lisa Peterson, Constituent Services Director Julio Mota, and Neighborhood Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart of the Salem Mayoral Office

Director of DPS Raymond Jodoin, Principal Account Clerk Brooke Coleman, and General Foreperson Katherine Nieman of the Salem Department of Public Services

I acknowledge the technological limitations laid out by Mr. Wellock in the City of Salem's capabilities to search emails. With this limitation understood, I would still ask that the specific estimated number of corresponding documents made necessary for the City to redact from in regard to my request be given by the City.

This ask for the number of documents made necessary to redact is not meant to add any extra strain on the City, but is the ideal way to clarify the necessity of the 10 hours for redactions the City gave in its 11/1 fee estimate. As was written by the City in its 11/1 fee estimate under "Efforts undertaken": "Work has already commenced by Salem: The records are in the process of being identified/gathered to establish if cost estimate is applicable to the records in which you are seeking as they will need to be prepared with any redactions needed in accordance with Massachusetts Public Records law." As the number of corresponding records necessary to redact from is likely already known by the City, I would still ask the City make the number of documents necessary to redact from in regard to my request known before the Supervisor's disposition on this fee appeal, SPR24/3443, in the interest of transparency.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

Forwarding my 1/3 response:

Dear Supervisor of Records,

I received a response on 1/3 from Mr. Wellock in regard to my modification made on 12/31. I will copy and paste below.

-

"Thank you for forwarding the email you sent to the Supervisor or Records on December 31, 2024 to me. In that email you modified your request to now read:

"From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024."

The capabilities of our email systems include the ability to search based on metadata fields sender, recipient, and date; and we can search for keywords in the subject field or email body. It does not include the ability to search by topic. It does not include whether the email is sent within or between departments. That is why we typically utilize keyword search functionality. I understand that you have rejected that suggestion. Our ability to identify the records you are requesting is frustrated by this technological limitation. If you were to proceed with your modified request, we would be pulling all of the emails sent or received limited by date, sender and recipient, and that would be an over-inclusive search result compared to what you described in your request. Then, we would need to review those emails for redaction.

Additionally, your 12/31 modified request has greatly expanded the search parameters. The 11/1 fee estimate was based on searching the eighteen sender / recipient email addresses. Your 12/31 modification expands this to three whole departments of email addresses. This greatly expands the scope of the search, which will increase staff time performing the searches, will increase the search result volume, and then the time spent reviewing those results for redaction. I doubt this was intended because you requested a restriction by topic, which is not within our capabilities. Let us know if you wish to proceed with your request as modified on 12/31, and we will reassess the fee estimate (but understand it would be an increase).

Otherwise, we will await the Supervisor's disposition on the original fee estimate appeal."

-

I thank him for his timely response, as well as his identification of a broadening of my request in my modification that I did not intend. It was a simple copy and paste error, apologies for that!

To clarify, I am requesting:

From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

In particular, the communication records of:

Salem Chief of Police Lucas J. Miller, Captain John Burke, and the Community Impact Unit of the Salem Police Department

Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff Lisa Peterson, Constituent Services Director Julio Mota, and Neighborhood Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart of the Salem Mayoral Office

Director of DPS Raymond Jodoin, Principal Account Clerk Brooke Coleman, and General Foreperson Katherine Nieman of the Salem Department of Public Services

I acknowledge the technological limitations laid out by Mr. Wellock in the City of Salem's capabilities to search emails. With this limitation understood, I would still ask that the specific estimated number of corresponding documents made necessary for the City to redact from in regard to my request be given by the City.

This ask for the number of documents made necessary to redact is not meant to add any extra strain on the City, but is the ideal way to clarify the necessity of the 10 hours for redactions the City gave in its 11/1 fee estimate. As was written by the City in its 11/1 fee estimate under "Efforts undertaken": "Work has already commenced by Salem: The records are in the process of being identified/gathered to establish if cost estimate is applicable to the records in which you are seeking as they will need to be prepared with any redactions needed in accordance with Massachusetts Public Records law." As the number of corresponding records necessary to redact from is likely already known by the City, I would still ask the City make the number of documents necessary to redact from in regard to my request known before the Supervisor's disposition on this fee appeal, SPR24/3443, in the interest of transparency.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

In light of the Supervisor of Records decision on appeal SPR24/3443 (attached below), I would very much like to attempt to reduce the scope of my records request to more succinctly capture the records I am requesting in understanding of the technological limitations laid out by the City in their ability to search email databases.

I understand the database makes use of key word search functionality. I am hesitant to restrict my search by key word so as to not miss out on potentially corresponding records that may not be captured within the given key words. I understand as well the inability of the City to search by topic, but would ask what else I could potentially do to reduce the scope of my request in the interest of lessening the potential fees.

Would suggested key words be helpful in this case? I would not want the search solely restricted to these key words for reasons stated above, but I would be happy to give key words that are likely to correspond to the necessary records and may make the search easier given the limitations laid out by the City if helpful.

Please let me know if this is a helpful modification, and please let me know if there are any other modifications I am able to make to my public records request (beyond key word search limitation and shortening of timespan, if possible) in the interest of lessening both the burden on the records custodian and the fees associated with this request as pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii): "a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably."

I would also again ask the City to please consider the public interest argument involved in making these records pertaining to low-income and homeless individuals free-of-charge. Please feel free to give me a call at (617) 642-0950 if that would be more ideal. Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow-up on my email sent to the City on 1/13/25 in light of the Supervisor of Records decision on appeal SPR24/3443 (attached below) encouraging us to communicate "directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably."

As stated on 1/13/25:

I understand the database makes use of key word search functionality. I am hesitant to restrict my search by key word so as to not miss out on potentially corresponding records that may not be captured within the given key words. I understand as well the inability of the City to search by topic, but would ask what else I could potentially do to reduce the scope of my request in the interest of lessening the potential fees.

Would suggested key words be helpful in this case? I would not want the search solely restricted to these key words for reasons stated above, but I would be happy to give key words that are likely to correspond to the necessary records and may make the search easier given the limitations laid out by the City if helpful.

Please let me know if this is a helpful modification, and please let me know if there are any other modifications I am able to make to my public records request (beyond key word search limitation and shortening of timespan, if possible) in the interest of lessening both the burden on the records custodian and the fees associated with this request as pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii): "a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably."

I would also again ask the City to please consider the public interest argument involved in making these records pertaining to low-income and homeless individuals free-of-charge. Please feel free to give me a call at (617) 642-0950 if that would be more ideal.

As it has now been 6 business days from the decision made on the appeal, and 50 business days since I originally received confirmation the City has begun working on identifying necessary records, I would again make a request that the number of documents made necessary to segregate and redact from my public records made 10/18/24 (and modified on 12/31/24 and 1/3/25) be made known in the interest of transparency and helping my understanding of the current fee estimate.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

I would appreciate if you could make this request of the IT department for suggested search terms.

For clarification: I was happy to offer key words that would hopefully lessen the strain on the City to search for the applicable records, but I would have asked that the request that I would have received from that suggestion not be restricted by those key words entirely so as to not miss out on potential records that potentially would've not fallen under the necessary key words but would still have applied to the request at large.

Please let me know what key word suggestions the IT department makes in regard to this request. After receiving those suggestions, I should be able to make a final evaluation on whether it is best the request should be modified by key words or remain as is.

In the meantime, if the City is able to be more transparent on the amount of records necessary to redact from regarding my request as it currently stands, that would be much appreciated and go a long way in aiding my understanding of the current fee estimate.

Thank you for your help.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

I wanted to follow-up regarding the 1/21/25 request of the IT department for potential search terms regarding my public records request made 10/18/24. Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

Have you received any update on this request? Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

I was wondering if you would be able to clear up some confusion I am having surrounding this response.

In your original estimated fee response on 11/1/24, you had already suggested I use the terms 'South River encampment' 'Wendy's encampment' or 'Tent City.'

Following the Supervisor of Records decision on the SPR24/3443 appeal, I made it clear that I was interested in reducing the fees of the request, and you responded by saying you could ask "the IT department if they could make a suggestion for search terms."

However, in your response to me on 2/10, you repeated your original suggestion of terms you had already suggested on 11/1. I would like to note that these terms were not from the IT department or the City of Salem's suggestion, as they were taken from my original request made on 10/18/2024 from when I described the encampment.

I am confused on if the IT department was ever asked suggested terms? It does not seem as though it was, given this response. It seems the terms given in the 2/10 response were not suggestions from the IT department, but were suggestions made by Mr. Wellock on 11/1 in direct response to terms I used in my 10/18/24 request.

If you could clear this up as soon as possible, that'd be very helpful. I am committed to working together to reasonably reduce the scope of these fees. Feel free to give me a call back at (617) 642-0950, I called this morning and left a voicemail.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

Thank you for the clarification.

Given the terms suggested by the IT department, my final request is below:

From the dates of June 8, 2024 - June 27, 2024, I am requesting all email communications, both within and in-between the Salem Police Department, Salem Department of Public Services, and the Salem Mayor's Office, solely regarding communications leading up to, that took place during, and took place after, the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024, solely regarding the eventual dispersal and removal of the tent encampment, commonly known as the 'South River encampment,' 'Wendy's encampment,' or 'Tent City' in Salem, Massachusetts on June 26, 2024. Including, but not necessarily limited to (within the given parameters), all applicable communications solely surrounding the dispersal orders posted by the Salem Police Department at the same tent encampment on June 13, 2024 and June 21, 2024, as well as the decision by Captain John Burke to confirm in a story published by the Boston Globe on June 25, 2024 titled, "Salem homeless encampment coming to an end," that the plan was to sweep the tent encampment "around 10 or 11" on June 26, 2024.

In particular, the communication records of:

Salem Chief of Police Lucas J. Miller, Captain John Burke, and the Community Impact Unit of the Salem Police Department

Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff Lisa Peterson, Constituent Services Director Julio Mota, and Neighborhood Stability Coordinator Lori Stewart of the Salem Mayoral Office

Director of DPS Raymond Jodoin, Principal Account Clerk Brooke Coleman, and General Foreperson Katherine Nieman of the Salem Department of Public Services

And in particular, restricted by the key words: "South River Encampment" "Wendy Encampment" "Tent City" "Encampment" "Homeless" "Move Along" "City Storage Policy Program" "Shelter" "Lifebridge" "Boston Globe"

Pursuant to the Supervisor of Records determination on the appeal SPR24/3443: "Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate." If you could let me know the new date the City will be able to produce these records by, as well as a revised fee estimate for this request, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

I'd like to follow up on the revised request below, sent 2/12/25.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Mr. Wellock,

I'd like to follow up on the revised request below, sent 2/12/25.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Dear Supervisor of Records and Mr. Wellock,

I am in receipt of the City's fee estimate and time petition.

It is currently unclear how it is possible the City is asking for another 45 business days from the receipt of the adjusted fee estimate on records it claimed it was already working on identifying and gathering on 11/1/24, 74 business days ago. The proposed time extension would extend the request another 45 business days for a request significantly smaller than the one originally received by the City that garnered an extension of just 20 business days on 11/1/24.

It is also unclear how the City came to the conclusion that "it will take approximately 2 minutes per email to complete its review, segregation, and potential redaction of these emails." As I've attached below from this 3/25/24 appeal to the Massachusetts State Police Department, the Supervisor of Records has in the past found this exact arbitrary designation of 2 minutes per each email for segregation and redaction as unclear without further explanation.

I would also note that "the supervisor of records may approve a petition from an agency or municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting, or a petition from a municipality to charge in excess of $25 per hour...provided, however, that: 1. in making a determination regarding any such petition, the supervisor of records shall consider the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records, the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees and any other relevant extenuating circumstances."

I have consistently lined out the clear public interest argument in these fees being waived outright. These records pertain to unhoused community members involved in an encampment sweep that would have no means to pay for even this new fee of $183.32 for records aimed at ensuring accountability in practices regarding that very sweep. I myself am a student journalist at Emerson College, and while I am by no means comparing myself to an unhoused member of our community, my position both professionally and personally make it difficult to cover these fees as well. I do not work for a major media company with a budget to handle these types of fees for public records, nor does Emerson College have any type of programs for it.

I would ask that the City not be allowed to extend their response a full 45 business days from the receipt of the adjusted fee estimate, which even if I were to pay tomorrow, would put the due date for these records following payment at May 2, 2025. If possible, I would ask the Supervisor of Records waives or further reduces the fees of this petition.

Thank you for your time.

From,

Adam Nuñez

Hello Mr. Wellock,

Can you please send over information on how I am able to pay for the responsive records, including a link to an online process if possible.

From,
Adam Nuñez