Sema Bekiroglu v. Boston, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251688)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 16, 2025 SPR25/1688 Christine O’Donnell, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Legal Advisor Boston Police Department 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Attorney O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Sema Bekiroglu 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 May 6, 2025, Ms. Bekiroglu requested: [1] All communications, including but not limited to emails, memos, meeting notes, and correspondence between: [a] [two identified individuals[;] [b] CJIS Compliance Unit within the Boston Police Department[;] [c] Any other legal or administrative staff associated with my original FOIA request, reference number tracking # B003679-120323. [2] All internal discussions, legal analyses, or notes related to the decision-making process for the response issued by [an identified individual] on February 2024 where it was stated that “a comprehensive search was completed, and no responsive documents were found.” [3] Records of any queries, searches, or CJIS audit logs conducted in response to my original FOIA request, including: [a] Any access logs or search attempts made by BPD personnel[;] [b] Documentation verifying the scope of the search performed[;] [c] Any communication between OPAT and BPD legal counsel specifically concerning the status of my investigation (OPAT Case #294) and its connection to CJIS access or related complaints. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1688 Page 2 June 16, 2025 The City responded on May 21, 2025, assigning the request reference number R002306- 050625. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Bekiroglu petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1688, 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. 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 21st Response In its May 21, 2025 response, the City informed Ms. Bekiroglu that it intended to process her request within 15 business days. Current Appeal In her June 12, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Bekiroglu stated that she had received no further response from the City. 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

Christine O’Donnell, Esq. SPR25/1688 Page 3 June 16, 2025 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 Ms. Bekiroglu’s request was submitted on May 6, 2025, and the City has not provided 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). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested 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 Ms. Bekiroglu with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Bekiroglu may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sema Bekiroglu