How SOS determined principal arguments on MA Ballot Initiatives FY12
| Submitted | Aug. 8, 2012 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Community Access Project
TO: Elections Division (Secretary of State)
DATE: August 8, 2012
REQUEST:
Pursuant to the state Freedom of Information Act, M.G.L. c.66, §10, I hereby request the following records:
Regarding the three November 2012 Massachusetts ballot questions, which are listed as:
Question 1, Availability of Motor Vehicle Repair Information
Question 2, Prescribing Medication to End Life and
Question 3, Medical Use of Marijuana
please provide:
a. a listing of all nonelected political committees organized under the provision of M.G.L. chapter fifty-five as ballot question committees relevant to the above-named three ballot questions; and on file with the Secretary's director of the office of campaign and political finance (OCPF), noting: which ballot question(s) the committee was organized to influence, and whether they support or oppose the question(s), and date of completed registration;
b. a dated copy of, or dated notes pertaining to, all communications (electronic, mail or phone) generated since May 1, 2012, from the Secretary's offices to any ballot question committees in seeking arguments for, and arguments against, each ballot question to be submitted to the voters of the commonwealth, per M.G.L. c. 54 §54;
c. a date-stamped copy of all 2012 ballot question arguments filed with, or prepared by the Secretary, under M.G.L. c. 54 §54;
d. a listing of any and all policies and standards that were referenced and utilized by the Secretary during the 2012 process of determining the final language for proponent and opponent arguments that will be submitted to the voters of the commonwealth for each of the three ballot questions;
e. records of all phone calls generated from the MA Elections Department to any ballot question committee representatives since May 1, 2012; and
f. dated copies of any acknowledgement and informational letters sent from the Secretary's office to any ballot question committees after they filed proponent or opponent arguments on any of the three 2012 ballot questions.
We 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 made in the process of news gathering 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 this request.
We expect the request to be filled, preferably by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not, in a format that is accessible to screen readers. Note: screen reading software converts text-to-speech for persons who are unable to read print. Files that are not accessible to screen readers include, for example, .pdf image files and other image files. A quick method of checking is: if you cannot select text in a document, it cannot be read by screen readers.
Thank you in advance 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,
Community Access Project
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
Dear Community Access Project,
The Elections Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth has received your August 8, 2012 request for records. Specifically, you are requesting records which relate to the three questions which will appear on the ballot in November of 2012. The Elections Division is in the process of compiling a good faith fee estimate for the provision of these records. If you have any questions, please contact me.
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 8, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
September 19, 2012
Dear Community Access Project,
I am writing to follow up my previous email regarding your request for records from the Elections Division (Division) of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Specifically, you are requesting records which relate to the three questions which will appear on the ballot in November of 2012.
As noted in my previous email, a custodian may charge a fee if complying with a request requires “search time.” 950 C.M.R 32.03 (defining “search time” as the time needed to locate, pull from the file, copy, and re-file a non-computerized public record). A custodian may charge a pro-rated fee based on the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(a).
The Division estimates that it will take one hour to locate and adequately review these records. The lowest paid employee of the Division capable of searching for and reviewing these records is paid the rate of $45 an hour. Given that the responsive records include email correspondence sent and received from Ms. Michelle Tassinari, the Division’s Director/Legal Counsel, Ms. Tassinari is the lowest paid employee with the capability to cull through her own emails which contain sensitive and privileged material.
While the Division may levy a fee for copying public records, the records will be provided in an electronic format with no copying fees assessed. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(d).
Please provide a check to the address below, made out to the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in the amount of $45. Once your payment is received, we will promptly act to provide you with the responsive records. If you do not find this response satisfactory, you have the right to seek redress through the administrative process provided by the Supervisor of Records. 950 C.M.R 32.08(2).
Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
Dear Community Access Project,
This Office has received your payment of $45.00. Attached, please find a receipt for your payment as well as the records responsive to your request. The records provided include email correspondence as well as attachments relating to the three questions which will appear on the ballot in November of 2012, as you have requested. Given the large size of the electronic files, you will be receiving two additional emails. In total, there will be three electronic files for the public records response named "CAP PRR Response 1", "CAP PRR Response 2" and "CAP PRR Response 3". If you have any questions, please let me know.
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
From: Community Access Project
Dear SOS. Thank you for the prompt 3-Part response; however, none of it was in accessible (screen-reader) format. In addition, there were 3 omissions.
Please provide the following, or a note explaining why these portions were omitted:
1. In Part 1 of the response, page 3, it looks like a portion of the email from page 2 through page 3 is either missing or redacted.
Please re-send this entire email in accessible electronic format
(email data: From: Michael Joyce Sent: Monday June 25 2012 12:37 pm Re: Committee Information To: Michael Sullivan).
2. We did not receive any response to d. of the request. Below, d.:
d. a listing of any and all policies and standards that were referenced and utilized by the Secretary during the 2012 process of determining the final language for proponent and opponent arguments that will be submitted to the voters of the commonwealth for each of the three ballot questions;
3. We did not receive any response to e. of the request. Below, e.:
e. records of all phone calls generated from the MA Elections Department to any ballot question committee representatives since May 1, 2012
Please respond with information that is in accessible format. Reminder: Scanned-image .pdfs are not accessible.
Thank you very much.
best wishes,
Eileen Feldman, director
Community Access Project, on behalf of
Second Thoughts Steering Committee
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 8, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 8, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 8, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 8, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
November 28, 2012
Dear Ms. Feldman,
I am writing in response to the follow-up to your August 8, 2012 public records request. Specifically, you are requesting 1) an email from Mr. Michael Joyce sent on June 25, 2012; 2) a listing of any and all policies and standards that were referenced and utilized by the Secretary during the 2012 process of determining the final language for proponent and opponent arguments that will be submitted to the voters of the commonwealth for each of the three ballot questions; and 3) records of all phone calls generated from the MA Elections Department to any ballot question committee representatives since May 1, 2012.
Attached, please find an electronic copy of the requested email from Mr. Michael Joyce sent on June 25, 2012.
However, there are no records in the possession of this Office which are responsive to request numbers 2 and 3. Further, there is no duty to create these records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (2010 ed.); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977) (There is no obligation for a custodian to create a record in response to a public records request.). A record holder’s duty to comply with requests for information extends only to those records which exist and are in his or her custody. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) (2010 ed.); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.03.
If you do not find this response satisfactory, you have the right to seek redress through the administrative process provided by the Supervisor of Records. 950 CMR 32.08(2). Please let me know if you have any questions.
From: MuckRock.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Aug. 8, 2012. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.
Thank you for your help.
From: Murray, Rebecca (SEC)
Please note, a follow-up response was provided on November 28th. If you have any questions, let me know.
Files
pages