Nathaniel Adams v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20250196)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2025 SPR25/0196 Grace Jung Records Access Officer City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Nathaniel Adams 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 December 11, 2024, Mr. Adams requested: …on December 8 the mayor posted a series of messages on Bluesky related to the Boston Family Days program. Within these messages she made references to data gathered by the [C]ity on usage of the program during the BPS-only pilot phase (in particular, she referenced data gathered by April and by August). Can I please have copies of *all* of the program usage data gathered by (or provided to) the City, including (but not limited to) the data batches specifically referenced by the Mayor in her posts? On December 11, 2024, the City acknowledged the request and assigned the reference number R005133-121124 for tracking purposes. On December 26, 2024, the City provided Mr. Adams with a response. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Adams petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0196, 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

Grace Jung SPR25/0196 Page 2 February 5, 2025 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. The City’s December 26th response In its December 26, 2024 response, 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.” Current Appeal In his petition, Mr. Adams states, “…On December 26, 2024, the City notified me that it would take the statutorily permitted 15 additional business days to fulfill my request. As of January 23, 2025, I have not received any further communication from the City. I am therefore filing this appeal to seek a determination that the City must provide me the requested information.” 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 Mr. Adams submitted his request on December 11, 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).

Grace Jung SPR25/0196 Page 3 February 5, 2025 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 Mr. Adams with a response to his 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. Adams 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: Nathaniel Adams