Anne McKinnon v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253262)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 19, 2025 SPR25/3262 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 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 October 21, 2025, Ms. McKinnon requested the following: Presentation materials, draft reports, memos or email communications about the draft Transportation Access Plan Agreement or draft TAPA for the proposed White Stadium project to and from any representative of the Boston Transportation Department, Boston Unity Soccer and all of its advisors and consultants. The requested materials include outlines, draft, preliminary, “sample” Transportation Access Plan Agreement documents and all Exhibits, and discussion about the peer review done by Fort Hill Companies. The time period for this request is from March 1, 2025 through July 15, 2025. The City responded on October 24, 2025, assigning the request reference number R005627-102125. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. McKinnon petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3262, 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). 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 SPR25/3262 Page 2 November 19, 2025 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 24th Response In its October 24, 2025 response, the City stated: Your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). There is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024)… Here, you seek records “to and from any representative of the Boston Transportation Department, Boston Unity Soccer and all of its advisors and consultants.” Since the names and emails of this information are not provided or known, a government employee has no way of reasonably identifying the records you seek without conducting an unreasonable amount of research… Finally, if the City was able to determine the records requested with reasonable particularity, it is likely based on your current request that it would be necessary to charge a fee estimate given the large volume of potential records… We encourage you to submit a new request with a more specific description or a narrower scope. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. McKinnon stated, “[t]he claim seems to hinge on my inability to identify Boston Transportation Dept. employees and that the request is therefore unreasonable. I argue that it is undeniable that there are communications and documents between BTD staff about this issue… I believe my request is reasonable in part because it covers fewer than 20 weeks and is limited to a single city agency.” Please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic

Grace Jung SPR25/3262 Page 3 November 19, 2025 expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). This office encourages Ms. McKinnon and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. McKinnon may wish to narrow her request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. McKinnon and the City communicate further as described above, Ms. McKinnon may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anne McKinnon