Nick Puleo v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251907)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 15, 2025 SPR25/1907 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 Nick Puleo, of Comsint Communications, 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 June 11, 2025, Mr. Puleo requested, “…information from BOSTN - EV00015372 Round 1 Version 1 / RFP - Cultural Planning Strategic Communications,” including the following: [1] Copies of each submitted proposal, including the pricing and technical components. [2] Scoring for each proposal. [3] Any internal communications related to the analysis and award of this RFP. The City responded on June 25, 2025, assigning the request reference number R002987- 061125. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Puleo petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1907, 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. 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 SPR25/1907 Page 2 July 15, 2025 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 June 25th Response In its June 25, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he records responsive to this request have been released to the Public Records Center,” and provided Mr. Puleo with a corresponding access link. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Puleo stated: The city of Boston responded on June 25, 2025, providing only copies of the technical components of the RFP proposals. They did not provide any of the other information requested and did not provide any explanation as to why that information was not provided. I responded to their email on June 25, noting this, but did not receive a response. I subsequently called, and they acknowledged the deficiency but have not provided any rationale for the omission. In a telephone conversation between the City and this office on July 9, 2025, the City stated that it reached out to one of its departments to clarify whether any additional responsive records exist and is waiting to hear back. Based on the City’s responses and the information provided in Mr. Puleo’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the City must clarify whether it possesses the requested documentation Mr. Puleo claims is missing from the link he was provided. 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). To the extent that the referenced records exist, 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 the remaining responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Puleo with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations

Grace Jung SPR25/1907 Page 3 July 15, 2025 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. Puleo 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: Nick Puleo