Makalah Lacy v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20241849)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 8, 2024 SPR24/1849; SPR24/1850 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 petitions of Makalah Lacy appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). SPR24/1849 On May 23, 2024, Ms. Lacy requested: [1.] [A]ll body camera footage, police reports, 911 call transcripts, and police dispatcher conversation transcripts in unredacted digital files for all officers… for the dates requested[;] [2.] [A] list of all officers’ names and their supervisors. SPR24/1850 Also on May 23, 2024, Ms. Lacy requested the following records “for the entire year of 2021”: [1.] Email Correspondence: [a.] Any emails sent or received by [an identified email address][;] [b.] All emails exchanged with City of Boston employees including the Human Rights Commission, the Mayor’s Office, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and any others[;] [c.] A list of names of employees who were contacted by or contacted [an identified individual], including the dates and times of these communications[;] 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. SPR24/1849; SPR24/1850 Page 2 July 8, 2024 [2.] Phone Calls: [a.] Records of any phone calls and meetings made by, about or to [an identified individual] with employees of the City of Boston, including details of the conversations where available[;] [3.] Internal Communications: [a.] Any internal notes or documented communications about [an identified individual] exchanged among city of Boston employees[;] [b.] Any correspondence discussing [an identified individual] within and between the Human Rights Commission, the Mayor’s Office, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination or any department or employee[;] [4.] Documented Communications: [a.] Any other forms of documented communications, such as memos or reports, [e]mails involving or mentioning [an identified individual;] [5.] Other Government Employees or Agencies: [a.] Any records of communication interactions between [an identified individual] and other government employees or agencies not specifically listed above. On May 23, 2024, the City’s Public Records Portal generated a confirmation for each request and provided a respective reference number for tracking purposes. On June 10, 2024, the City responded to each request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Lacy petitioned this office and these appeals were opened as a result. While these appeals were pending, the City provided a supplemental response to each of Ms. Lacy’s requests on July 7, 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. 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. 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.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1849; SPR24/1850 Page 3 July 8, 2024 The City’s June 10th and July 7th responses In its June 10, 2024 response to each of Ms. Lacy’s requests, 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.” In its July 7, 2024 supplemental responses, a representative of the City stated, “I have alerted representatives from the department regarding this matter in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding your public records request. I will provide an update to you once additional information is provided to me by the department.” Current Appeal In each of her appeals, Ms. Lacy asserts, “the City has failed to produce the requested records or provide a sufficient detailed explanation for the delay within the allotted timeframe. As of today, [J]une 25th the deadline has long passed, and I have yet to receive the requested documentation or a satisfactory response regarding the delay.” 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). Where Ms. Lacy submitted her requests on May 23, 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); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay).

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1849; SPR24/1850 Page 4 July 8, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Lacy with a response to her 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. Lacy 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: Makalah Lacy