Ray Fuschetti v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20250954)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2025 SPR25/0954 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 Ray Fuschetti 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 16, 2025, Mr. Fuschetti requested the following: [1] Documentation or records of any data collected to evaluate the number of bicyclists using neighborhoods prior to the installation of bike lanes [and] information about [how] such data was gathered and by whom[;] [2] Details about the individuals, teams, or organizations responsible for analyzing the data collected[;] [3] Copies of all studies or reports analyzing [the] data[;] [4] A copy of studies or reports used to assess bicyclist usage and determine the necessity for bike lanes in each neighborhood. The City provided responses on January 31 and February 18, 2025, assigning the request reference number R000247-011625. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Fuschetti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0954, 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 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 SPR25/0954 Page 2 April 9, 2025 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. See 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. See 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 January 31st and February 19th Responses In its January 31, 2025 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.” In its February 19, 2025 response, the City stated, “…. we are working on locating your records. Our team is actively working to fulfill your request as promptly as possible.” Current Appeal In his April 8, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Fuschetti stated, “On [January 31, 2025] [the City] requested an extension up to 15 days and then on February 19th I was told they were continuing to work on it but nothing has been provided yet.” 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.

Grace Jung SPR25/0954 Page 3 April 9, 2025 G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Fuschetti submitted his request on January 16, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive 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. Fuschetti 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. Fuschetti 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: Ray Fuschetti