Anne McKinnon v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252611)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 16, 2025 SPR25/2611 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 Anne McKinnon 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 2, 2025, Ms. McKinnon requested, with regard to “Project Greenlight”, the following: [1] A “…list of all signalized intersections analyzed using street names (there were "hundreds"); [2] A list of the 114 intersections using street names where the City implemented Google Research's recommendations; and [3] The reduction in delay achieved (in seconds or minutes) for each of the 114 intersections using street names where changes were made.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2310 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 19, 2025). In my August 19th determination, I found that the City had not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I found the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expected to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). The City responded and provided records on August 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. McKinnon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2611, was opened as a result. 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

Ms. Grace Jung SPR25/2611 Page 2 September 16, 2025 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. The City’s August 29th Response In its August 29, 2025 response, the City states, “[t]he record furnished is a list of intersections; however, the city does not currently hold data from Google on the precise reduction in delay achieved. As such, there are no responsive records for that portion of your request.” Current appeal In her September 3, 2025 appeal, Ms. McKinnon states “[t]he list the city provided is not adequate. I wish to appeal the non-response. For the City to claim it ‘does not currently hold data from Google on the precise reduction in delay achieved’ is nuts. I have attached press releases in which the City cites percentage reduction in delay at some intersections and states that hundreds of intersections were studied (the full list was not provided). In order to estimate the percentage reduction, one must have the number of seconds saved. These data must be recorded on paper or a spreadsheet; it's unlikely the Google people read the numbers over the phone to the BTD staff.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City contacted the Public Records Division via email on September 11, 2025, stating, “[w]e have reached out to the [Boston Transportation Department] and they have confirmed that we have released all records responsive to this request. We have no further records to release to Ms. McKinnon.”

Ms. Grace Jung SPR25/2611 Page 3 September 16, 2025 Based on Ms. McKinnon’s claims, in conjunction with the City’s response, I find that the City must explain whether the requested records existed and were permissibly destroyed, or whether the records did not initially exist. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). If records were destroyed, I find that the City must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. McKinnon 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. Ms. McKinnon may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anne McKinnon