Michael Damiano v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20242807)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 24, 2024 SPR24/2807 Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Director of Public Records City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney Williams: I have received the petition of Mike Damiano, of the Boston Globe, 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 September 24, 2024, Mr. Damiano requested the following: [1] all internal plans and drafts of plans created by or in the possession of the Boston Public Schools capital planning team related to or discussed school mergers and closures drafted or prepared since January 1, 2024. [2] all draft documents related to proposed or discussed school mergers and closures drafted or prepared since January 1, 2024. [3] all plans and planning documents related to proposed or discussed school mergers and closures drafted or prepared since January 1, 2024. [4] all draft statements related to proposed or discussed school mergers and closures drafted or prepared since January 1, 2024. The City responded on October 8, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Damiano petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2807, 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). 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. SPR24/2807 Page 2 October 24, 2024 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. Att’y 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. The City’s October 8th response In its October 8, 2024 response, the City identified the request as Request R003872- 092424 and 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.” Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of Mr. Damiano’s appeal. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (a records access officer may 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). Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Damiano in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Mr. Damiano receives a response he may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mike Damiano