Colman Herman v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252429)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 29, 2025 SPR25/2429 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Plaza, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Colman Herman 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 18, 2025, Mr. Herman requested, with regard to the Boston Family Days program, “copies of any and all of the agreements and memoranda of understanding executed with the [following] organizations:” [1] Arts Emerson; [2] The Boston Ballet; [3] The Boch Center; [4] The Huntington Theatre; [5] The Boston Lyric Opera; [6] The Boston Symphony Orchestra; [7] The Wheelock Family Theatre at Boston University; [8] The Paul Revere House; [9] Old North Illuminated; [10] The USS Constitution Museum; and [11] Revolutionary Spaces. The City responded on July 3, 2025, and assigned the request reference number R003181-062325. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2429, 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 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 SPR25/2429 Page 2 August 29, 2025 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 3rd response In its July 3, 2025 response, the City responded to Mr. Herman stating, “[d]ue to the nature of your request, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Herman states, “[o]n July 3, 2025, [the City] told me that [they] will need 15 more business days to produce the public records related to the museum program…The deadline has come and gone, but [the City has] been silent...” Timeframes for 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).

Grace Jung SPR25/2429 Page 3 August 29, 2025 Where Mr. Herman’s request was submitted on June 18, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Herman 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. Herman may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s supplemental response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman