Allan Ihrer v. Boston, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252239)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 4, 2025 SPR25/2239 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Allan Ihrer 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 3, 2025, Mr. Ihrer requested the following: [1] White Stadium transportation planning materials: including traffic studies, shuttle bus capacity and timing studies, internal and external emails, any roadway, parkway, and shuttle parking facility agreements, and presentations regarding the transportation and traffic elements of the stadium proposal[;] [2] White Stadium traffic and transportation related design and construction cost estimates for alterations to City of Boston roadways and infrastructure and to Franklin Park roadways, parking areas, and park infrastructure: including plans, internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations[;] [3] White Stadium transportation related communications within the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority and or the Boston Police Dept.: including plans, internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations regarding the transportation and traffic elements of the White Stadium proposal[;] [4] Plans showing White Stadium related security and surveillance camera locations in public areas of the stadium, both interior and exterior, and within the Franklin Park landscape[;] [5] White Stadium shade and shadow studies, wind/breeze studies, and any studies/analysis of elevated temperatures within the stadium – driven by solar insolation and or ambient air temperatures[;] [6] White Stadium environmental impact and MEPA related internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations[;] [7] Boston Unity Soccer Partners’ White Stadium construction documents: up to date construction plans, sections, and elevations[;] 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 SPR25/2239 Page 2 August 4, 2025 [8] White Stadium Franklin Park Opportunity Zone related communications: internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations regarding the use, or possible use, of Opportunity Zone tax incentives by the stadium proponents[;] [9] BPS’ White Stadium athletic and grandstand facility construction documents: up to date construction plans, sections, and elevations[;] [10] City and BPS’ White Stadium design and construction cost estimates: including internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations[;] [11] City and BPS’ White Stadium financial pro formas: including internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations concerning the bond issuance to be used to pay for the BPS’ portion of the project[;] [12] White Stadium bond issuance materials: including internal and external emails, agreements, and presentations concerning the bond issuance to be used to pay for the BPS’ portion of the project. The City responded on June 4, 2025 and July 24, 2025, assigning the request reference number R002781-060325. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Ihrer petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2239, 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. 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 4th and July 24th Responses On June 4, 2025, the City stated, “I’ll coordinate with the relevant teams here in the Planning Department and BPDA to pull together the responsive records that are within our custody then be in touch with an update within ten business days. If it looks like we’ll need more time, I’ll let you known within that time frame.”

Grace Jung SPR25/2239 Page 3 August 4, 2025 On July 24, 2025, the City stated, “[a]s your request involves records from across multiple City departments, the City’s Public Records Office has assumed responsibility for the collection of the records responsive to your request. You can expect to receive a response directly from their office.” Current Appeal In his July 31, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Ihrer stated, “[o]ur records request go back to December of 2024, with 4 of the items having been requested 3 times. Our last request was 41 business days ago.” Timeliness in Providing Records 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 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 Mr. Ihrer made his request on June 3, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to Mr. Ihrer’s request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide the responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ihrer 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. Ihrer may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Grace Jung SPR25/2239 Page 4 August 4, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Allan Ihrer