Sharon Riddick v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253096)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 5, 2025 SPR25/3096 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 Sharon Riddick 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 15, 2025, Ms. Riddick requested “records regarding the creation, use, routing, and monitoring of [an identified email address], as well as staff response (or lack thereof) to a Whistleblower complaint submitted on September 7, 2020.” Specifically, Ms. Riddick sought: [1] Email server logs and system configuration data[;] [2] Routing, forwarding, and access permissions[; and] [3] Any related correspondence by staffers copied on the September 7, 2020 complaint email. The City assigned the request reference number R003612-071525. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2880 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 10, 2025). In my October 10th determination, I found that the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. The City responded on October 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Riddick petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3096, 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 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 SPR25/3096 Page 2 November 5, 2025 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 October 21st Response In its October 21, 2025 response, the City stated, “[a]t this time, we have not made or received the records you seek. As such, no responsive records exist.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Riddick states, “[r]egarding the City’s October 21 response in R003612-071525 stating that no responsive records exist to my July 15, 2025 request, this does not satisfy the City’s obligations under G.L. c. 66 § 10 or the Supervisor of Records’ October 10, 2025 order in SPR25/2880.” Subsequently, the City contacted the Public Records Division via email on October 23, 2025, stating, “[w]e have contacted the appropriate departments to confirm that no records exist. The records Ms. Riddick seeks are not preserved back to 2020.” Records Management Based on the City’s response, I find the City must explain whether the records existed and were 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 these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Riddick with a response to the request, explaining its justification under the Public Records Law and the Schedule for destroying the records, 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Grace Jung SPR25/3096 Page 3 November 5, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sharon Riddick