← Back to Search
Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20240495)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 02-14-2024
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20240495 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Michelle Efendi concerning records held by Boston, City of - Public Records, opened 02-14-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20240495
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Michelle Efendi
- Custodian
- Boston, City of - Public Records
- Date Opened
- 02-14-2024
- Date Closed
- 02-28-2024
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 28, 2024 SPR24/0495 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 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 7, 2024, Ms. Efendi requested, “…all records concerning threats of violence against the Mayor and her family between December 20, 2021 and February 7, 2022.” The City provided a response on January 23, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Efendi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0495, 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. 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. 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. SPR24/0495 Page 2 February 28, 2024 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 23rd response In its January 23, 2024 response, 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 Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Efendi states, “…no response despite 10 business days + 15 extra 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 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). Whereas Ms. Efendi submitted her request on January 7, 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 search 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. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/0495 Page 3 February 28, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Efendi 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 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