Lana Sullivan v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252479)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 5, 2025 SPR25/2479 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 Lana Sullivan, Esq., of the Law Office of Lana Sullivan, 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 3, 2025, Attorney Sullivan requested the following records: [1] All emails [an identified individual] sent to and/or received from [an identified individual] from October 1, 2023 to February 6, 2025. [2] All separation and/or settlement agreements concerning [an identified individual] and the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. [3] All communications between [seven identified individuals] . . . and any of [four identified] individuals from January 1, 2024 to the present concerning the sale of parking lots to the City of Boston . . .[;] [4] All communications between [an identified individual] and the City of Boston Retirement Board from January 1, 2024 to the present. The City provided a response on July 18, 2025, assigning the request reference number R003381-070325. Unsatisfied with the City’s response and claiming to not yet have received responsive records, Attorney Sullivan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2479, 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 SPR25/2479 Page 2 September 5, 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. Att’y 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 18th Response In its July 18, 2025 response, the City stated, “[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 her August 21, 2025, appeal petition, Attorney Sullivan states, “[o]n July 18, 2025, I received the attached response from . . . the City. I have not received any of the public records I have requested.” Timeframe 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 SPR25/2479 Page 3 September 5, 2025 Where Attorney Sullivan submitted her request on July 3, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find that the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search 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 Attorney Sullivan 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. Attorney Sullivan may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lana Sullivan, Esq.