Stevan Johnson v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20243335)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 27, 2024 SPR24/3335 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 Stevan Johnson 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 November 18, 2024, Mr. Johnson requested, “[a] copy of any record(s) [an identified individual] created between January 22, 2011 and May 5, 2014 concerning the January 21, 2011 report of 2 USPS money orders being stolen that were purchased November 2, 2010 totaling $225.00, i.e.: Serial No.’s appearing as follows (a) 18155247186 - ($150.00), and (b) 18155247197 - ($75.00).” The City responded on November 18 and November 20, 2024, and assigned tracking number B003324-111824. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Johnson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3335, 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 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. SPR24/3335 Page 2 December 27, 2024 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 November 18th and November 20th responses In its November 18, 2024 response, the City acknowledged receipt of the request and designated a reference number. In the City’s November 20th response, the City states: First, your request does not comply with the Public Records Law (PRL), G.L. c. 66 and 950 C.M.R. 32.00. Your request is excessively broad, and so broad that it is not permitted by the PRL. The Supervisor of Public Records requires that public records requests must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). … In accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision described above, whereas you seek ‘all information and documents’ or ‘any and all communications, documents, e-mails, text messages, voice recordings, and other information or tangible evidence’ ‘pertaining’ to elections for example, it is unclear with ‘sufficient particularity’ which records you seek. Thus, your request ‘calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘[regarding]’ the category of materials requested.’ Chawla, at 2. Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). In this case, Mr. Johnson has not provided the City with sufficient particularity required for the City to identify the documents he is seeking. Mr. Johnson may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Johnson has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. Conclusion I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide the specific records Mr. Johnson seeks.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. SPR24/3335 Page 3 December 27, 2024 If Mr. Johnson is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stevan Johnson