Jillian Bertrand v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251256)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 16, 2025 SPR25/1256 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 Attorney Jillian M. Bertrand, of Pyle Rome Ehrenberg, PC, 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 April 18, 2025, Attorney Bertrand requested “a list of the name, title, and city email address for each employee in the Mayor’s Office of Arts and Culture.” The City responded on May 5, 2025, and assigned reference number 002020-041825 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Bertrand petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1256, 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. 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 SPR25/1256 Page 2 May 16, 2025 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 May 5th Response In its May 5, 2025 response, the City provided a copy of “the organizational chart for the Mayor’s Office of Arts and Culture.” The City further stated that “the City of Boston does not maintain a list of the name, title, and city email addresses for each employee in the Mayor’s Office of Arts and Culture, therefore, there are no responsive records for this request.” In her appeal petition, Attorney Bertrand argues the following: It is frankly not plausible that the City does not have records of its employees’ names, titles, and City email addresses, and there can be no doubt that such information is public record. To the extent the City’s response is based on an overly rigid interpretation of the word “list,” the fact that the City does not keep this information in a traditional list form does not exempt the City from its disclosure obligation. Records in Existence The City is advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). Based on the City’s response, and the information provided in Attorney Bertrand’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. If the City does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Bertrand 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

Grace Jung SPR25/1256 Page 3 May 16, 2025 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Attorney Bertrand 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: Jillian M. Bertrand, Esq.