Ray Fuschetti v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20250972)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 11, 2025 SPR25/0972 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 February 12, 2025, Mr. Fuschetti requested the following records for the period January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024: [1] The names of the person(s) or entity/entities responsible for designing Boston’s bike lanes[;] [2] A list of all software used in the design and planning of the bike lanes[;] [3] The names of the person(s) or entity/entities responsible for hiring who designed the bike lanes [and] approved the use of the software in the bike lane design process[;] [4] A list of companies involved in creating Boston’s bike lanes[,] who hired these companies [and] whether there was a formal bidding process for these contracts[;] [5] The names of person(s) or entity/entities responsible for overseeing the results of these projects[;] [6] [A]ll communications between the City and representatives of Via Transportation[;] [7] Any contracts, agreements, or memoranda of understanding between the City and Via Transportation[;] 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 SPR25/0972 Page 2 April 11, 2025 [8] Documentation of projects for which Via Transportation was hired by the City, including project names, descriptions, budgets, and deliverables[;] [9] Records of any project in which Via Transportation participated alongside the City, even if the City did not directly hire or contract them[;] [10] Records detailing the procurement process, including bids, proposals, and evaluation criteria, for any projects involving Via Transportation[;] [11] Policies or disclosures related to conflict of interest checks for vendors, contractors, or collaborators, with specific regard to Via Transportation[;] [12] Records of payments made to Via Transportation by the City, including invoices, receipts, or financial reports[;] [13] Any documentation or disclosures related to ownership, past affiliations, or changes in Via Transportation’s corporate structure that was provided to the City. The City provided a response on February 27, 2025, assigning the request reference number R000735-021225. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Fuschetti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0972, 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. 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.

Grace Jung SPR25/0972 Page 3 April 11, 2025 The City’s February 27th Response In its February 27, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he City of Boston has received your request for public records….Due 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 April 9, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Fuschetti stated, “[o]n February 27th I was informed [the City] needed up to but no longer than 15 business to complete [the request] but [I] have not been provided with any data.” 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. Fuschetti submitted his request on February 12, 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.

Grace Jung SPR25/0972 Page 4 April 11, 2025 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