Laura H. Ortiz v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20241878)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 10, 2024 SPR24/1878 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 Laura Ortiz 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 April 22, 2024, Ms. Ortiz requested the following records: [1.] SPR23/3055. . . a copy of any written response by the City of Boston only to this appeal as well as only any to/from correspondence with the SEC[.] If Boston corresponded with the SEC via phone, then we seek any notes that Boston may have created regarding discussions with the SEC or if the meeting was recorded, then we seek a copy of the recording. . . [.] Timeline 12/19/23-1/3/24[;] [2.] SPR23/3109. . . a copy of any written response by the City of Boston only to this appeal as well as only any to/from correspondence with the SEC[.] If Boston corresponded with the SEC via phone, then we seek any notes that Boston may have created regarding discussions with the SEC or if the meeting was recorded, then we seek a copy of the recording. . . [.] Timeline 12/26/23-1/9/24[;] [3.] SPR24/0038. . . a copy of any written response by the City of Boston only to this appeal as well as only any to/from correspondence with the SEC[.] If Boston corresponded with the SEC via phone, then we seek any notes that Boston may have created regarding discussions with the SEC or if the meeting was recorded, then we seek a copy of the recording. . . [.] Timeline 1/24/24-1/18/24[;] [4.] SPR24/0102. . . a copy of any written response by the City of Boston only to this appeal as well as only any to/from correspondence with the SEC[.] If Boston corresponded with the SEC via phone, then we seek any notes that Boston may 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. SPR24/1878 Page 2 July 10, 2024 have created regarding discussions with the SEC or if the meeting was recorded, then we seek a copy of the recording. . . [.] Timeline 1/11/24-1/26/24[;] [5.] SPR24/0170. . . a copy of any written response by the City of Boston only to this appeal as well as only any to/from correspondence with the SEC[.] If Boston corresponded with the SEC via phone, then we seek any notes that Boston may have created regarding discussions with the SEC or if the meeting was recorded, then we seek a copy of the recording. . . [.] Timeline 1/19/24-1/31/24[.] The City provided a response on May 6, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1878, 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 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 6th Response In its May 6, 2024 response, the City advised that “…due 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. Ortiz states, “the City never followed through with either providing a response nor providing any public records[.]” Timeliness in 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

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/1878 Page 3 July 10, 2024 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. Ortiz’s request was originally submitted on April 22, 2024, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested 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. Ortiz with a response to her 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. Ortiz may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz