Patrick N. Bryant v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20231051)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 1, 2023 SPR23/1051 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Patrick N. Bryant, Esq., of Pyle Rome Ehrenberg PC, representing the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 19, 2023, Attorney Bryant requested, “[a]ll disciplinary letters issued by the Commissioner, Acting Commissioner, or highest ranking officer of the Boston Police Department to sworn police officers; all reports of Chief Administrative Hearings Officer into IAD specifications of Boston Police Officers.” On May 17, 2023, Attorney Bryant limited the request to the past five years. The City responded on May 4, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Bryant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1051, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/1051 Page 2 June 1, 2023 The City’s May 4th Response In its May 4, 2023 response, the City asserted that the “...request does not comply with the Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL. The Supervisor of Public Records requires that public records requests must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent Suffolk Superior Court case, the court found that under the PRL “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” Chawla v. Dep't of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019).” Current appeal In his appeal, Attorney Bryant states, “[t]he City provided a bad faith and disingenuous denial below. The Department issues disciplinary letters to individuals for violations of Department rules and regulations. Further, a Chief Administrative Hearing Officer issues reports following hearings on internal affairs allegations. These are terms of art used by the Boston Police Department and described with sufficient particularity.” Provide timeframe G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). I encourage Attorney Bryant and the City to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Attorney Bryant may wish to include applicable time periods, search terms or factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/1051 Page 3 June 1, 2023 offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Bryant with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. pre@sec.state.ma.us. Attorney Bryant may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick N. Bryant, Esq