Phil Thompson v. Massachusetts Port Authority (SPR 20252710)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 29, 2025 SPR25/2710 Shannon O’Donnell Public Records Access Officer Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive East Boston, MA 02128 Dear Ms. O’Donnell: I have received the petition of Phil Thompson appealing the response of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 23, 2025, Mr. Thompson requested the following: [1] Electronic badge-in or access control records (including any log-in/log-out data, ID scans, gate access records, or time-tracking logs) for [two identified individuals]; [2] Payroll records and job classification reports for [two identified individuals] for 2010-2025 including: [a] Position titles held, job descriptions, and classification…; [b] Dates of hire, changes in employment status, promotions, or reclassifications; [c] Weekly or biweekly pay stubs or summaries, including total hours paid, overtime hours, and job codes used; [d] Any associate documentation justifying or approving their pay, including supervisor approvals or timecard entries; and [e] Records of payments made through third-party agents, if applicable… [3] Payroll records for all longshoremen employed under Ship Operations and Conley Terminal (2000-2005); [4] Job assignment records/dispatch logs documenting who was scheduled or dispatched to each job during that time; [5] Badge-in/official attendance records, including any gate access logs or security sign-in data, showing actual entry into the facility by those employees. 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

Shannon O’Donnell SPR25/2710 Page 2 September 29, 2025 Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2401 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 18, 2025). In my August 18th determination, I found the Authority must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. The Authority responded on September 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Thompson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2710, 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 municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the Thompson 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 Thompson 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. Current appeal In his September 13, 2025 appeal, Mr. Thompson states “... certain elements of security system design may constitute SSI, basic attendance data — i.e., the dates and times when two named individuals entered a facility — is not inherently exempt. Federal law requires that exempt material be segregated, with reasonably segregable non-exempt portions released.... My request was narrowly tailored to two specific individuals over a defined time period. The purpose is not to probe security vulnerabilities, but to verify payroll accuracy and worksite attendance. Badge-in timestamps are relevant for public accountability and do not reveal sensitive security architecture, schematics, or vulnerabilities” Mr. Thompson’s appeal appears to not contest the Authority’s September 12th fee estimate of $2,275.00.

Shannon O’Donnell SPR25/2710 Page 3 September 29, 2025 The Authority’s September 12th response In its September 12, 2025 response, the Authority provided a good faith estimate of $2,275.00. In support, the Authority stated, “[t]he Authority has identified certain records (potentially numbering over 20,000 separate pages) which may be responsive to your request.... The basis of that cost is ninety-five (95) hours of staff-time searching for and identifying responsive documents using the hourly wage of the lowest paid staff member qualified to perform the task required. The hourly wage rate has been reduced to Twenty-Five Dollars ($25) per hour and does not include the first four (4) hours of time spent searching, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2). Again, if you wish to narrow your request, please do so in writing within 10 business days of the date of this letter.” Unclear Appeal Based on the foregoing, where the Authority has provided a fee estimate to obtain the responsive records, I find that the basis of Mr. Thompson’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Thompson is advised that pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(b), if fees are being assessed, a records access officer shall provide a written, itemized, good faith estimate of any fees that may be charged to produce the records prior to complying with a public records request within ten business days following receipt of a request. 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(b). As Mr. Thompson appears to not have objected to the Authority’s fee estimate, please note that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). In this case, the Authority has provided a fee estimate which must be paid before the records are released to Mr. Thompson. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(b). This office encourages Mr. Thompson to communicate directly with the Authority in order to arrange payment and receipt of the records responsive to his request. Also, if Mr. Thompson wishes to appeal the Authority’s fee estimate, he may do so within ninety (90) days, describing his specific objections to the Authority’s response. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed.

Shannon O’Donnell SPR25/2710 Page 4 September 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Phil Thompson