Nick Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20251998)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2025 SPR25/1998 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 Laudani 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 25, 2025, Mr. Laudani requested: [1] Attendance records and/or meeting minutes for each public hearing or meeting held by the Highland Park Architectural Conservation District Commission (HPACDC) from June 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. [2] Any documentation indicating: - Whether commissioners (full or alternate) were present or absent at each meeting - Whether a quorum was established at each meeting - The names of commissioners voting on any action or determination - Any roll call votes recorded in writing or by video [3] If available, any certified minutes or summaries ratified by the Commission for the same time period, or drafts thereof. The City responded on July 1, 2025, assigning the request reference number R003243- 062625. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1998, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided supplemental responses on July 15, 2025 and July 17, 2025. 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 SPR25/1998 Page 2 July 17, 2025 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 July 1st Response On July 1, 2025, the City marked the request status as “Admin Closed.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Laudani stated: Despite submitting a detailed and specific request for attendance records and meeting minutes of the Highland Park Architectural Conservation District Commission from June 2024 through June 2025, the request was marked “Admin Closed” without:  Any records being produced;  Any written explanation for denial;  Any citation of exemptions under M.G.L. c. 66 § 10;  Any confirmation that responsive records exist or do not exist. In a telephone conversation between the City and this office on July 15, 2025, the City clarified that all records responsive to the request were released to Mr. Laudani on July 1, 2025 through the City’s public records portal in response to a separate request, assigned reference number R003207-062425. The City also stated that it possesses no additional responsive records. In a supplemental response on July 15, 2025, the City explained further, “#R003243- 062625 was administratively closed, as the request was a duplicate of #R003207-062425.” The

Grace Jung SPR25/1998 Page 3 July 17, 2025 City also provided this office with a copy of its response to R003207-062425, which provided an access link and stated, “[t]he records responsive to this request have been released to the Public Records Center.” In a follow-up response on the same day, the City provided this office with an updated version of the City’s response to R003207-062425, dated July 15, 2025, which provided an updated access link. The City further stated, “[o]ur department would like to apologize for a technical error in which it appeared that records were released to the portal, but an incorrect file was attached. The correct record has been furnished to the requester[.]” In a third supplemental response on July 17, 2025, the City stated, “I have alerted representatives from the department regarding this matter in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding your public records request. I will provide an update to you once additional information is provided to me by the department.” Based on the City’s responses and the information provided in Mr. Laudani’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. The City must clarify this. 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 additional 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. Laudani with a response to his 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. Laudani 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 Laudani