Timothy Martin v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252885)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 15, 2025 SPR25/2885 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 Timothy Martin, of WFXT/Boston 25 News, 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 April 16, 2025, Mr. Martin requested “video of [an identified] Boston City Councilor . . . removing items from her office on March 2nd.” The City responded on September 26, 2025, and assigned reference number R001989- 041625 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Martin petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2885, was opened as a result. In an email to Mr. Martin and this office on October 8, 2025, the City provided a further response. 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. 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 SPR25/2885 Page 2 October 15, 2025 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 appeal petition, Mr. Martin argues the following: The city is claiming that the release of this video could have the potential to compromise public safety or cybersecurity. The video in question is of a lobby within Boston City Hall, a public building. Furthermore, the video I am seeking is already available to any member of the public with access to the internet. It appears on WCVB’s website . . . as well as their youtube page. . . . Considering the public already has access to this video, I ask that it be made available to Boston 25. The City’s September 26th and October 8th Responses In its September 26, and October 8, 2025 responses, the City cites Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017).

Grace Jung SPR25/2885 Page 3 October 15, 2025 The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its September 26th response, under Exemption (n), the City argues the following: The record responsive to this request is exempt from release under exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. Government records custodians are permitted to redact or withhold portions of public records, so long as a specific exemption to the law is cited. See G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26). Security footage such as that that you request contains information that is exempt from disclosure due to the sensitive nature of the records and potential for compromise of public safety. In its October 8th response, the City further argues the following: City of Boston personnel responsible for the safety and security of public buildings have reviewed the responsive footage and have determined that releasing the footage presents a public safety risk. Disclosure of the footage would reveal the locations of security cameras within City Hall, and specifically would reveal areas within City Hall that are not covered by security cameras. Such information being released publicly creates a potential security vulnerability. Furthermore, while the City is aware that the video is public, the footage was not released by the City. The unauthorized disclosure of this footage by a third party does not constitute a waiver of exemption (n) by the City, and the City has significant concerns that to hold otherwise would incentivize similar unauthorized disclosures in the future. Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the requested video footage resembles the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the record resembles “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the record is the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Where the requested records bear a minimal resemblance to the categories listed in Exemption (n), the burden on the custodian to prove its “reasonable judgment” that disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety is greatest. See id. at 290 (noting “inverse correlation” between the two prongs of Exemption (n) inquiry). Further, the City did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested

Grace Jung SPR25/2885 Page 4 October 15, 2025 records pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the City has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Martin 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. Mr. Martin may further 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: Timothy Martin