Benjamin Siegel v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253314)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 21, 2025 SPR25/3314 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 Benjamin Siegel 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 June 14, 2025, Mr. Siegel requested the following: [P]ublic records concerning the City of Boston’s 30-day review of recent street safety and transit infrastructure projects, as referenced in the City Hall memo dated February 21, 2025. I respectfully request the following records: 1. Calendar entries for [an identified individual] and [an identified individual] from February 21, 2025 through external individual or organization. 2. Emails or meeting invitations sent or received by [an identified individual] or [an identified individual] between February 21 and March 31, 2025 that include one or more of [a list of] keywords in the subject line or body[.] . . . 3. Any list, spreadsheet, tracker, or internal summary document used by [an identified individual], [an identified individual], or members of the Streets Cabinet (including [identified individuals]) that documents:  names of individuals or organizations that requested a meeting,  names of individuals or organizations with whom meetings were held,  summaries or notes of meetings, or  structured outreach schedules or results compiled during the review period. 4. All correspondence between [an identified individual] and the Longwood 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 SPR25/3314 Page 2 November 21, 2025 Collective or its affiliates between February 1 and March 31, 2025 regarding the 30-day review, bus lanes, or street infrastructure changes. 5. Email correspondence between [an identified individual] and [an identified individual], Director of Stakeholder Engagement, from February 1 through March 31, 2025, that contains one or more of [a list of] keywords in the subject line or body[.] . . . If feasible, please prioritize production of any compiled “project tracker” or list of stakeholder meetings and requests. I am happy to clarify or narrow this request further if doing so would facilitate processing. Please respond with an estimated date of completion and provide responsive records on a rolling basis, as required under G.L.c. 66, § 10(b). The City provided numerous responses from June 14, 2025 through September 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Siegel petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3314, 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 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 Responses On June 14, 2025, the City confirmed receipt of Mr. Siegel’s request. In multiple communications from July 1, 2025 through August 4, 2025, Mr. Siegel and the City narrowed the scope of search terms for his request. On August 18, 2025, the City stated, “[t]hank you for moving forward with the new

Grace Jung SPR25/3314 Page 3 November 21, 2025 terms. Public Records has already begun fulfilling your request and we hope to provide the records to you as soon as we can.” On September 9, 2025, the City asserted, “I understand your concerns, and I want to reassure you that your request remains active and is currently being processed by our team. Because of the scope and volume of the request, the review process has taken longer than expected. While I’m not able to provide a specific completion date, please know that we are continuing to work on your request and will provide the records once the review is complete.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Siegel contends: I write to appeal the City of Boston’s failure to timely respond to my public records request, filed on June 14, 2025 and assigned tracking number R003055- 061425. The request concerns the City’s “30-day review” of recent street safety and transit infrastructure projects. . . . Despite repeated follow-ups and substantial narrowing on my part, the City has not produced records or provided a concrete completion date. At this point— nearly four months since filing—the delay amounts to a constructive denial. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that . . . a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Siegel submitted his request on June 14, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Grace Jung SPR25/3314 Page 4 November 21, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Siegel 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. Siegel may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Benjamin Siegel