Nicholas Laudani v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252341)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 18, 2025 SPR25/2341 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 Nicholas 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 July 28, 2025, Mr. Laudani requested: [1] Any final vote or resolution by the Highland Park Architectural Conservation District Commission (HPACDC) to adopt Standards and Criteria for the Highland Park ACD; [2] Agendas or minutes from any meeting where adoption of the Standards and Criteria was proposed, discussed, or voted on; [3] Public hearing notices and records, including public comment summaries or transcripts, related to the adoption process; [4] The final, legally adopted version of the Standards and Criteria, if such a version exists; [5] If no formal adoption occurred, please provide written confirmation that the currently posted criteria are unadopted or in draft form. The City responded on July 28 and July 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Laudani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2341, 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 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 SPR25/2341 Page 2 August 18, 2025 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 28th and July 29th Responses In its July 28, 2025 response, the City assigned the request reference number R003851- 072825. In its July 29, 2025 response, the City provided Mr. Laudani with a link to responsive records posted on a public website, and informed him that “[a]ll other requested information does not exist.” Current Appeal In his August 11, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Laudani characterized the City’s response as incomplete and requested that the City be compelled to answer certain questions. In an email communication to this office on August 15, 2025, the City confirmed that it had provided Mr. Laudani with all records responsive to his request. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends only 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). Conclusion Given that all responsive records have been provided, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records or answer questions, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Laudani is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal,

Grace Jung SPR25/2341 Page 3 August 18, 2025 please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Laudani