Michelle Efendi v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20241340)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 15, 2024 SPR24/1340 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 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 17, 2024, Ms. Efendi requested: [A]ll records concerning the public records requests for the “master list of protesters.” Specifically, I am seeking records of the comprehensive search … completed by City of Boston. Additionally, I am seeking public records between City of Boston Public Records Department and Boston Police regarding these public records’ searches. I am seeking records from Boston Police Department concerning their determination that no records were responsive for the “master list of protesters.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/0376 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 15, 2024). In my February 15th determination, I ordered the City to provide a response to the request. The City provided a response on May 2, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Efendi further appealed, and this case, SPR24/1340, 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 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. SPR24/1340 Page 2 May 15, 2024 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. The City’s May 2nd Response In its May 2, 2024 response, the City stated that “[t]here are no records responsive to this request.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Efendi contends that there “must be public records related to these requests to the ‘master list of protesters’ because I, at least, have made inquiries several times. It is my understanding other people have, as well. I want public records from the Public Records Department staff, at minimum. Public records from [the RAO] interacting with the Police Department concerning these specific public records inquiries. In addition, the public records from the Police Department regarding the attempts to locate these records and the ultimate decision the ‘Master List of Records’ supposedly does not exist.” Records in Existence 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). Additionally, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). In an email correspondence on May 9, 2024, the City confirmed that it does not possess responsive records. Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Ms. Efendi’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Efendi is not satisfied with the resolution of this 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. SPR24/1340 Page 3 May 15, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michelle Efendi