Patrick N. Bryant v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20250751)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2025 SPR25/0751 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Patrick Bryant, Esq., of Pyle Rome Ehrenberg PC, appealing the response of the Boston Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 15, 2025, Attorney Bryant requested: [1] List of current Boston police cadets as of December 31, 2024. [2] Breakdown of Boston police cadets by race, ethnicity, gender, veterans status, and language. [3] List of current Boston police cadets who have passed civil service examination. [4] Number of cadets as of December 31, 2024 with a relative employed by the Police Department. [6] [sic] Number of cadets as of December 31, 2024 with a relative employed by the City. [8] [sic] Application form for Boston Police Cadets. [9] [sic] Application form for Boston police officers. [10] [sic] Numbers of current Boston police officers fluent in more than one language, by each language (e.g., Spanish, etc.). [10] [sic] Selective certification requests by Boston Police Department to HRD since January 20, 2022. [11] [sic] A gender/ethnic breakdown of police cadets proficient in each language. [12] [sic] A gender/ethnic breakdown of police cadets who are veterans. [13] [sic] A gender/ethnic breakdown of police cadets who have passed the civil service entrance exam for police officer. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/0751 Page 2 March 31, 2025 [14] [sic] All communications, including emails, discussing or regarding selective certification for Boston police officer lists in 2024 and 2025. [15] [sic] Number of veterans or disabled veterans who declined to sign list for most recent round of original appointments. [16] [sic] Number of veterans and disabled veterans bypassed in each round of hiring since 2022. The Department responded on January 15, 2025 and January 27, 2025, assigning the request reference number B000158-011525. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Attorney Bryant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0751, 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 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 Department’s January 15th and January 27th responses On January 15, 2025, the Department stated, “[y]our request has been received and is being processed.” On January 27, 2025, the Department responded, “[d]ue to the nature of your request additional time is needed. As such, BPD will need up to, but no more than fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” Current appeal In his appeal, Attorney Bryant states, “[t]o date, we have not received a response to any requested item.”

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/0751 Page 3 March 31, 2025 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 Attorney Bryant’s request was submitted on January 15, 2025, and the Department has not provided responsive records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Department 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 Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Bryant 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. Attorney Bryant may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Bryant, Esq.