Anne McKinnon v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253414)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 4, 2025 SPR25/3414 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 November 18, 2025, Ms. McKinnon requested the following: PRICE PROPOSALS ONLY submitted by all firms for demolition and construction for the White Stadium Renovation Project #7278. Provide the names of all firms that submitted price proposals, bid amounts for each, and the name of the selected firm and amount bid and amount of its contract if different from that submitted. Provide the results of the evaluations of each firm using the evaluation criteria on page 27 of the RFP and/or staff recommendation for the selected firm. The City responded on November 18, 2025, and assigned reference number R005972- 110425 to the request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. McKinnon petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3414, 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. 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 SPR25/3414 Page 2 December 4, 2025 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 November 19th Response In its November 19, 2025 response, the City provides a link to numerous responsive records, and explains the following: The records responsive to your request about price proposals and the results of firm evaluations have been released to the Public Records Center. . . . Please be advised that the BOND Contract is specifically responsive to your request for the results of the firm evaluations. There are no additional responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. McKinnon argues the following: [M]y request was only partially answered. They sent the price proposals submitted by the five firms and the contract award page. They did not send “Provide the results of the evaluations of each firm using the evaluation criteria on page 27 of the RFP and/or staff recommendation for the selected firm claiming” Please be advised that the BOND Contract is specifically responsive to your request for the results of the firm evaluations. There are no additional responsive records.” [sic] How can this be? Page 24 of the RFQ/RFP says there are “Evaluation Criteria for Selection” and page 26-27 of the RFQ/RFP lists the Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria. Isn’t the City required to have the proposal evaluations in writing? Page 27 shows a number of criteria with the points assigned to each. It is inconceivable to me that City officials would not formally document the evaluation of proposals for a $5.7 million contract. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to

Grace Jung SPR25/3414 Page 3 December 4, 2025 questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In an email to this office on November 20, 2025, a representative for the City stated that “I have confirmed with the relevant departments that we provided all responsive records to this request.” Where the City has confirmed that it does not possess additional responsive records, and the City has no duty to create records, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. McKinnon is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anne McKinnon