Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20240419)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 23, 2024 SPR24/0417; SPR24/0419; SPR24/420 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 601 Boston, MA 02201-2014 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petitions of Michelle Efendi appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2024, Ms. Efendi requested the following records: SPR24/0417 …all records concerning both [an identified individual] and the protests at Mayor…house between January 25, 2022 and February 8, 2022; SPR24/0419 …all records concerning both [an identified individual] and the protests at Mayor…house between January 25, 2022 and February 8, 2022; SPR24/0420 …all records concerning both [an identified individual] and the protests at Mayor…house between January 25, 2022 and February 8, 2022. The City provided responses to each request on January 24, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Efendi petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR24/0417, SPR24/0419, and SPR24/0420, were opened as a result. 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. SPR24/0417; SPR24/0419; SPR24/0420 Page 2 February 23, 2024 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. See 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s January 24th responses In each of its January 24, 2024 responses, the City stated, “…[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 Appeals In each of her appeals, Ms. Efendi stated the “[r]eason for appeal: no response despite providing an extra 10 [sic] business days.” Timeliness of providing records 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/0417; SPR24/0419; SPR24/0420 Page 3 February 23, 2024 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). Where Ms. Efendi submitted her requests on January 8, 2024, it is unclear why the City has not provided the responsive records. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the searches and provide the outstanding 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. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Efendi with a response to the requests, 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. Ms. Efendi may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michelle Efendi