Brian McCarter v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251231)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 16, 2025 SPR25/1231 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 Brian McCarter 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 March 10, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested, “all the original receipts for [an identified] trip [by a named City employee]. This would include ones paid or outstanding invoices. If any summary reports exist to the trip costs, please provide those. Any emails discussing the cost of the trip would also be responsive.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1090 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 30, 2025). In my April 30th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. McCarter with a response to his request. Subsequently, I learned that the City provided responses on April 25, 2025 and April 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1231, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on May 14, 2025. 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 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 SPR25/1231 Page 2 May 16, 2025 order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y 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 April 25th, April 28th, and May 14th Responses In its April 25, 2025 response, the City provided one redacted record and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions. The City additionally advised that the portion of Mr. McCarter’s request seeking, “[a]ny emails discussing the cost of the trip[,]” did “not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as [it is] overly broad and vague.” In support of this contention, the City cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019), stating: In your request, you seek “any emails discussing the cost of the trip.” This is overly broad because your request “calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘[regarding]’ the category of materials requested.” Chawla , at 2. In its April 28, 2025 response, the City provided four additional responsive records with redactions and did not cite an exemption in support of its redactions. Based on a review of the file, the four records appear to be responsive to the portion of Mr. McCarter’s request seeking, “[a]ny emails discussing the cost of the trip[,]” as the emails provide confirmation of a hotel stay and flight bookings, and name the City employee and trip that Mr. McCarter identified in his request. The four responsive emails also contain information regarding the cost of the flights, as well as the cost of a two-night hotel stay. In its supplemental May 14, 2025 response to Mr. McCarter and this office, a City representative stated, “I have alerted representatives from the department regarding this matter in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding your public records request. I will provide an update to you once additional information is provided to me by the department.” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. McCarter asserts that his request “is clearly distinguishable from Chawla[.]” He further states, “I limited the request to communications related to a single, publicized trip ([date of trip], [trip location]), Involving a specific office . . . and narrow timeframe (communications in the weeks preceding and during the trip), Tied to known public activities likely involving limited staff and a clear purpose[.]” Mr. McCarter additionally

Grace Jung SPR25/1231 Page 3 May 16, 2025 contends, “[t]he City's own ability to identify and produce receipts for this specific trip demonstrates that the parameters are sufficiently clear to identify responsive records.” Additionally, upon review of the appeal, it appears that Mr. McCarter is not objecting to the City’s claims under Exemption (c). Reasonable Description of Records Sought A request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id. In this case, Mr. McCarter has provided descriptions of the categories of responsive emails he is seeking, including, among other things, a date range and the specific subject matter of the emails. While his request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, he has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking. This office encourages Mr. McCarter and the City to continue communicating to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. McCarter 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. McCarter may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Grace Jung SPR25/1231 Page 4 May 16, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter