Tina Murray v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251914)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 9, 2025 SPR25/1914 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston One City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Tina Murray, of North Point Associates, 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 15, 2025, Ms. Murray requested the following: [1] All email communication, including attachments, sent or received from [seven identified individuals] from March 2025-present[;] [2] Any and all documents, including email communications with attachments, containing the term “Creator Summit” from January 2025-present. The City responded on May 30, 2025, providing a fee estimate and assigning the request reference number R002474-051525. On June 2, 2025, Ms. Murray narrowed the scope of the request to “[a]ll email communication, including attachments, sent or received from [six identified individuals] from March 2025-present.” Having received no further correspondence from the City, Ms. Murray petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1914, 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). 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 SPR25/1914 Page 2 July 9, 2025 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. Conclusion Despite being notified of the opening of this appeal, it remains unclear whether the City has provided a response to the June 2nd modified request. Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Murray with a response to her modified 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. Ms. Murray 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: Tina Murray