Colman M. Herman v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20250688)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2025 SPR25/0688 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Colman Herman 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 January 28, 2025, Mr. Herman requested the following records: [1] Records of any and all expenses that [an identified individual] incurred in her capacity as superintendent of Boston Public Schools for the period January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 [including:] a) Expense reports, including back-up receipts[;] b) Credit cards statements, including back-up receipts[;] c) Automobile expense records, including back-up receipts[;] d) Any and all other records that document [an identified individual] expenses, including back-up receipts [2] The written employee reimbursement policy of Boston Public Schools[.] The City responded on March 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0688, was opened as a result. The City assigned reference number R000521-020225 to this request. 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 SPR25/0688 Page 2 March 24, 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 March 7th response In its March 7, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he records responsive to this request have been released to the Public Records Center. Click the link below to log in to the Records Center. Additionally, we have attached the records responsive to this email.” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Herman states that redactions were made without the City claiming an exemption and the City did not produce the reimbursement policy requested. Mr. Herman further stated with regard to the redactions, “...I will let it go except for one, as follows. In three of the four documents there were Lyft records there were redacted mostly in their entirety. Please cite an exemption for these.” The City’s March 7, 2025 response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The City redacted portions of the records without claiming any exemption(s) in the Public Records Law that would support the redacting of the responsive records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. As a result, I find that the City did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Consequently, the City must identify an exemption that applies to redact portions of the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Further, based on Mr. Herman’s claims, it is unclear if the City possesses the requested written employee reimbursement policy of Boston Public Schools. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether the requested record exists.

Grace Jung SPR25/0688 Page 3 March 24, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Herman 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. Herman may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman