Nathaniel Adams v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20232358)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 16, 2023 SPR23/2358 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston Records Access Officer One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Nathaniel Adams appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 18, 2023, Mr. Adams requested the following records: [1.] [An identified file number]: Message references a “simulation workbook” used by BPS, and later provided to EY. Can you please provide a copy of the workbook, along with the results of any simulations run by BPS and/or EY from October 2022 through May 2023? [;] [2.] [An identified file number]: Message references an “Exam School Superintendent Circular.” Can you please provide a copy (or point to its location online, if already publicly available)? [;] [3.] [An identified file number]: Message refers to “situational decisions” made by BPS that are not part of the exam school admissions policy as adopted. Can you please provide a comprehensive list of such decisions with respect to the spring 2021 and spring 2022 admissions cycles? [;] [4.] [An identified file number]: The fourth bullet includes a fully redacted sentence. I understand where the City has redacted references to individual students, but redacting a complete sentence seems unusual. Can you please explain why it was redacted and/or describe in general terms the content of the sentence? [;] [5.] [An identified file number]: It looks like the names of individual schools were 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. SPR23/2358 Page 2 October 16, 2023 redacted, along with student ID nos. Again, I understand the need to redact personal identifying information, but would appreciate an explanation as to why the school names can’t be provided. [6.] [An identified file number]: Message references a meeting agenda. Please provide a copy of the final agenda for this meeting, and (to the extent agendas were prepared) all other meetings between BPS personnel and EY during the period February through May 2022. [7.] [An identified file number]: Message contains a question regarding policy around date cut‐off for applicant address. Can you please tell me what answer was given for this question? ... [8.] [An identified file number]: This email includes an attachment that shows the names of non‐BPS schools attended by applicants, with a request that BPS confirm which of those schools received 10 bonus points. Can you please provide written evidence of which non‐BPS schools were allocated bonus points? (Along the same lines, please provide the file referenced in [an identified individual’s] email sent April 7, 2022 at 9:50 a.m. – see [an identified file number], first nested message.) [9.] [An identified file number]: Message’s second paragraph includes a redaction for the location of a certain file. Can you please explain why that was redacted? [10.] [An identified file number]: Message included two attached .xls spreadsheets. Can you please provide (non‐ PW‐protected) copies? [;] [11.] Lastly, with apologies because I can’t find the file number – at one point an EY representative asked BPS personnel if bonus points should be assigned to non‐ BPS applicants based on their grade 6 school, as opposed to BPS applicants who received bonus points based on their grade 5 school. Can you please tell me which grade year was used in assigning bonus points to non‐BPS students? [12.] April 18, 2023 follow-up request: Please provide copies of any minutes and other written documentation (including notes taken by participants) documenting the substance of telephonic/oral discussions between BPS and EY that took place during the period January through May 2022[.] On September 1, 2023, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Adams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2358 was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/2358 Page 3 October 16, 2023 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. Att’y 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. The City’s September 1st Response In its September 1, 2023 response, the City advised that “[d]ue to the nature of your request additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Adams states, “I still have not received a response to this request, and am therefore filing this appeal with the Secretary.” 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. Where Mr. Adams’ request was originally submitted on August 18, 2023, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR23/2358 Page 4 October 16, 2023 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Adams with a response to his 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Adams may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nathaniel Adams