Ray Fuschetti v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251726)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 27, 2025 SPR25/1726 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 Ray Fuschetti 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 January 16, 2025, Mr. Fuschetti requested, the following records regarding the planning and implementation of bike lanes across Boston in 2023 and 2024 Records of Data Collection: [1] Documentation or records of any data collected to evaluate the number of bicyclists using neighborhoods prior to the installation of bike lanes [and] information about [how] such data was gathered and by whom[;] [2] Data Analysis: Details about the individuals, teams, or organizations responsible for analyzing the data collected[;] [3] Copies of all studies or reports analyzing [the] data[;] [4] Storage of Data: Records indicating where this data is stored (e.g., digital databases, physical reports). [5] Studies Conducted: A copy of studies or reports used to assess bicyclist usage and determine the necessity for bike lanes in each neighborhood. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0954 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 9, 2025). In my April 9th determination, I ordered the City to 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 SPR25/1726 Page 2 June 27, 2025 provide Mr. Fuschetti with a response to his request. The City responded on June 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Fuschetti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1726, 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. See 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. See 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 June 12th Response In its June 12, 2025 response, the City stated the following: 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). In Friedman, the Court focused on the reasonableness standard contemplated throughout the Public Records Law. The Court recognized that the reasonable description requirement is necessary under the Public Records Law because the law “was not intended to reduce government agencies to full-time investigators on behalf of requestors.” Friedman, quoting Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024)[.] Here, you seek details about the individuals, teams, or organizations responsible for analyzing bike lane data; copies of any studies or reports that analyze such data; and records identifying where the data is stored all related to the planning and implementation of bike lanes. The scope of your request would require a government employee to conduct an analysis of who may have been responsible for collecting and analyzing data and determine where such data may be stored. Additionally, it is unclear what records you seek in your requests for

Grace Jung SPR25/1726 Page 3 June 27, 2025 “[d]ocumentation or records of any data collected” and “[i]nformation about whether such data was gathered.” Given this, your request constitutes a demand for research rather than the identification of specific records. 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). However you may find the following records helpful given the nature of your request: For Part 1 of your request, certain data is available at: https://www.boston.gov/departments/boston-bikes/bike-data. For Part 4 of your request, a related report can be found at: https://www.boston.gov/government/cabinets/streets-cabinet/betterbike- lanes, under the section titled “Measuring Our Work.” 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. Current Appeal In his June 16, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Fuschetti stated the following: In its June 12, 2025 response, the City denied the majority of my request by claiming it constituted a demand for “research.” This is incorrect. I requested specific, pre-existing records related to bike lane planning and implementation in 2023 and 2024, including: [1] Documentation or records of data collected to evaluate bicycle usage [2] Information about whether such data was gathered, and by whom [3] Records identifying the individuals, teams, or organizations responsible for analyzing that data [4] Copies of any studies or reports analyzing the data [5] Records indicating where the data is stored (e.g., digital databases or physical formats) These are well-described categories of public records, not questions or requests for analysis. I also stated clearly that I was willing to clarify or narrow the request if needed, but the City made no attempt to engage and instead closed it. While the City provided links to a public-facing bike data viewer and a summary report, these only partially address two of the six items. They did not search for or

Grace Jung SPR25/1726 Page 4 June 27, 2025 produce any internal documentation identifying responsible staff, data analysis methods, or storage systems. Nor did they provide any emails, memos, raw datasets, or working documents that would reasonably fall under the scope of my request. 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. 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 material requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” The City is further 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 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). In this case, Mr. Fuschetti has provided descriptions of the categories of records he is seeking, including, among other things, a date range, the specific subject matter, and the specific types of documents he seeks. 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. Fuschetti and the City to continue to communicate directly to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Grace Jung SPR25/1726 Page 5 June 27, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Fuschetti 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 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Fuschetti 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: Ray Fuschetti