Alex Marthews v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20242547)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 20, 2024 SPR24/2547 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Record Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Alex Marthews 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 June 6, 2024, Mr. Marthews requested: Documents, emails and text messages relating to the expiration of the current Boston municipal contract with ShotSpotter, other than the one email already supplied under PRR# B003003-092523. Any documents, emails or other materials referring to ‘Phase II’ of the proposed contract with SoundThinking to provide ShotSpotter coverage in the areas of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan, including any documents describing the basis on which the area to be covered by Phase II was determined. In Exhibit B of the current Service Level Agreement (which expires June 30), page 114, ShotSpotter (now rebranded as ‘SoundThinking’) commits to detect at least ‘90% of unsuppressed, outdoor gunfire incidents, using standard, commercially available rounds above .25 caliber. . . . Each Service Level measurement shall be determined quarterly, the results of which will be reviewed during the periodic account review meetings with Customer.’ We request any records relating to these quarterly determinations or periodic account review meetings, and any information relating to adherence or non adherence to the contracted Service Levels, and any information as to how ‘gunfire incident’ is defined.’ If there are no records of any such quarterly determinations or periodic account review meetings having happened, please specify that there are no responsive documents, rather than simply disregarding entirely this important element of the request. 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. SPR24/2547 Page 2 September 20, 2024 Any documents where ShotSpotter (now SoundThinking) and the City discuss an expansion of the contract to cover other services currently provided by SoundThinking. SoundThinking currently refers to four services - ShotSpotter, ‘CrimeTracer’, ‘CaseBuilder’ and ‘ResourceRouter’, as their ‘SafetySmart’ platform.’[.] The City provided a response on June 28, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Marthews petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2547, 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. 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 June 28th Response In its June 28, 2024 response, the City stated that “[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 his appeal, Mr. Marthews states, “[i]f the agency cannot respond to a public records request within the ten days required by statute, and requires twenty-five business days, they are required to ‘provide’ a ‘detailed explanation’ as to why. The sum total of their ‘detailed explanation’ for this public records request is that the delay is ‘[d]ue to the nature of your request.’ This makes a mockery of the statutory requirement.”

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/2547 Page 3 September 20, 2024 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 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 it appears Mr. Marthews submitted his request on June 6, 2024, and the City has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive 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 Mr. Marthews 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. Mr. Marthews 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: Alex Marthews