Brian McCarter v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251345)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 28, 2025 SPR25/1345 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 April 7, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested: [1] A list or summary of projects from January 1, 2020, to present that include units designated under the Homeless Housing Set-Aside Policy, including: Project name[,] Developer[,] Number of set-aside units[,] Funding status (approved, pending, denied) [2] Any internal tracking documents, summary sheets, or compiled records maintained by the Mayor’s Office of Housing that reflect use or implementation of the Homeless Housing Set-Aside Policy. This request does not seek full funding applications—only summary-level MOH documents…. Given the City’s repeated public use of this terminology, the request is clearly defined and not vague. If no such summaries or tracking records exist, I request written confirmation per 950 CMR 32.06(3)(c)…. The City responded on May 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1345, 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 SPR25/1345 Page 2 May 28, 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. 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 City’s May 6th Response In its May 6, 2025 response, the City provided a reference number R001810-040725 and stated: Your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). There is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024) (March 15, 2024)…. Here, you seek ‘a list or summary of projects’ and ‘Any internal tracking documents, summary sheets, or compiled records’ reflecting ‘use or implementation of the Homeless Housing Set-Aside Policy.’ Based on the details provided, we are unable to determine which projects or records you are referring to, and therefore cannot reasonably identify the documents necessary to fulfill this request. Since this information is not provided, a government employee has no way of reasonably identifying the records you seek without conducting an unreasonable amount of research. As such, your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024) (March 15, 2024). We encourage you to submit a new request with a more specific description or a narrower scope. In the meantime, this request will be closed. Should you seek specific records, we encourage you to visit the City’s public records portal.

Grace Jung SPR25/1345 Page 3 May 28, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McCarter states, “[m]y request explicitly stated that I was not seeking full funding applications, only summary-level internal records that track or reflect the review of projects under a named policy, during a defined timeframe. This is narrow and consistent with requests upheld in Worcester…” 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 a date range, descriptions of the categories of responsive records he is seeking, including the specific subject matter of the records and examples of records sought. Consequently, he has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking. This office encourages Mr. McCarter and the City to communicate directly 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 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 SPR25/1345 Page 4 May 28, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter