Young Kim v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20251365)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 29, 2025 SPR25/1365 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Young Kim appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 2, 2025, Ms. Kim requested: According to the email from [an identified individual] on Oct 21, 2024 to [an identified individual] obtained through Public Records Request # P250362- 022525 (see the attached), ‘You … could cite it as a study done by the Cambridge Development Department. They hired a third-party consultant to help advise staff and come up with these projections (nb - that was presented to the Housing Committee in August 2024).’ Therefore, please provide me with all the records related to the contract for the consultant referenced above to include but not limited to [1] all documents related to awarding the consultant contract including but not limited to advertisement, proposals received, and award criteria. [2] the contract, paid invoices and deliverables including final report [3] all review meeting minutes The City responded on May 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Kim petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1365, 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 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

Seah Levy SPR25/1365 Page 2 May 29, 2025 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. 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 7th Response In its May 7, 2025 response, the City states: I have attempted to determine if the City has responsive records to your request, but have been unsuccessful. The Purchasing Department is unable to locate and provide records without more information as to the name of the consultant, or additional information about the contract. I have also spoken with [an identified individual], in an attempt to determine the name of the consultant or additional information. She was unable to provide additional details. Finally, I have spoken with the CDD. Unfortunately, the email in question was insufficient to provide enough information to determine the subject of the search. Therefore, with regards to this request, the City is unable to provide a response to the request as currently written. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought ‘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. Department of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No 1 794CV02087 (January 23, 2019). The current request lacks particularity, is overly burdensome, and does not provide sufficient information to undertake a search for responsive records. The City asks that you narrow your request and/or provide additional details regarding the records you are requesting. Please feel free to contact me by email or phone to discuss your request, so that we can work towards providing you with a response. Current Appeal In her appeal petition to this office, Ms. Kim states:

Seah Levy SPR25/1365 Page 3 May 29, 2025 My request specifically references an October 21, 2024, email from [an identified individual] to [an identified individual] … Based on this communication, I requested that PRAO Levy obtain records from the Cambridge Development Department regarding any contracts, agreements, or communications with third- party consultants who provided data for the August 2024 Housing Committee presentation. Despite follow-up attempts, I have received no response. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, 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.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “all documents related to awarding the consultant contract” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Ms. Kim may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records she is seeking. Once Ms. Kim has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. Further, in its response, the City is seeking clarification regarding the scope of Ms. Kim’s request. Please be advised that it is valid for the custodian of records to 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Given the expansiveness of the request, Ms. Kim is encouraged to provide the City with the needed clarification regarding the contract referenced in the City’s response. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public records sought). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Kim is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

Seah Levy SPR25/1365 Page 4 May 29, 2025 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Young Kim