Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20240330)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2024 SPR24/0330 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 Michelle Efendi 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 January 5, 2024, Ms. Efendi requested “... all records concerning February 11, 2022 when people refused to wear masks at Boston City Hall. There was a large police presence managing City Hall entry and the people who protested inside the City Hall lobby ... Records should include from any and all City of Boston employee and/or public record, not just police records.” On January 9, 2024, Ms. Efendi modified her public records request to include, “...all records between February 11, 2022 and February 18, 2022 concerning the February 11, 2022 incident when people refused to wear masks to enter Boston City Hall.” The City responded on January 9, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Efendi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0330, 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 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. SPR24/0330 Page 2 February 20, 2024 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 January 9th response In its January 9, 2024 response, the City asserted, “[y]our request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent Suffolk Superior Court case, the court found that ‘[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 her appeal, Ms. Efendi states, “[t]he Secretary of State claims they closed the appeal because the City of Boston responded to me. In fact, there has been no real change to my original appeal application, other than, the City of Boston stating they stand by their original response and redirecting me elsewhere. I ask the Secretary of State to open this appeal and thoroughly investigate the continued denial of my public records requests from the City of Boston. I remind the Secretary of State I have provided them documented evidence.” Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[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.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Conclusion I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide the specific records Ms. Efendi seeks. If Ms. Efendi is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/0330 Page 3 February 20, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michelle Efendi