Kiana M. Lucas-Yang v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20252265)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 18, 2025 SPR25/2265 Stephen Shorey, Esq. Senior Counsel Office of the General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Shorey: I have received the petition of Kiana Lucas-Yang appealing the responses of the Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 19, 2025, Ms. Lucas-Yang sought the following: [C]opies of public records involving or referencing [an identified individual] in relation to my employment with the Registry of Motor Vehicles and/or MassDOT... Please include all of the following: [1] Emails, memos, Teams messages, and internal communications sent by or to [an identified individual] referencing . . . between 2013 to 2018 [2] Any documentation tied to whistleblower-related concerns raised by me regarding unprocessed driving infractions, CDL drivers, or court record backlogs—especially those connected to known motor vehicle fatalities [3] Any response or record referencing my documented offer to assist with backlog processing (including unpaid or voluntary time) [4] Any internal notes, communications, or assignments referencing my reassignment, modified duties, or removal from core responsibilities [5] Any documentation involving demotion discussions, recommendations, or performance-based justification(s) for altering my role [6] Any complaints, documented concerns, or actions involving retaliation, 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

Stephen Shorey, Esq. SPR25/2265 Page 2 August 18, 2025 discrimination, or harassment filed against [an identified individual] or involving his role—especially those impacting myself or other employees of color [7] Meeting notes, summaries, or internal reviews in which [an identified individual’s] name appears in connection with personnel management, whistleblower-related reviews, or civil rights exposure[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1706 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 27, 2025). In my June 27th determination, I found MassDOT did not meet its burden under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety, and that MassDOT needed to identify the responsive records being withheld. MassDOT responded on July 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with MassDOT’s response, Ms. Lucas-Yang petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2265, was opened as a result. It is my understanding that MassDOT assigned the request reference number P001053-051925. 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Lucas-Yang’s interest in obtaining the

Stephen Shorey, Esq. SPR25/2265 Page 3 August 18, 2025 records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. MassDOT’s July 25th Response In its July 25, 2025 response, MassDOT stated: It is my understanding that you have a Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) complaint against MassDOT. See Kiana Lucas Yang v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation, MCAD Docket No. 25BEM01720. Pending Administrative Proceeding 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Based on MassDOT’s response, it is unclear whether the responsive records are the subjects of disputes in the administrative proceeding. Specifically, MassDOT has not explained how the responsive records are involved in the proceeding. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Burden of Specificity MassDOT is advised that, under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non- exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Accordingly, MassDOT’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Further, MassDOT did not identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). MassDOT must clarify these matters.

Stephen Shorey, Esq. SPR25/2265 Page 4 August 18, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, MassDOT is ordered to provide Ms. Lucas-Yang with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kiana Lucas-Yang