Colman Herman v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253603)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2025 SPR25/3603 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 Colman Herman 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 16, 2025, Mr. Herman requested, “... any and all of the expense records listed below related to [an identified individual’s] trip to Nova Scotia. This request is for [an identified individual] and everyone else who went with her” including the following: [1] Expense reports, including back-up receipts...[;] [2] Credit cards statements, including back-up receipts ...[;] [3] Automobile expense records, including back-up receipts[;] [4] Any and all other records that document [an identified individual] et al.’s expenses, including back-up receipts ...[.] The City responded on December 2, 2025 and December 3, 2025, and assigned the request reference number R006237-111725. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Herman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3603, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on December 19, 2025. 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 SPR25/3603 Page 2 December 22, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Herman states the following: [1] The two expense reports for two police officers list $176.07 and $100.00 for “meals,” but no back-up receipts were produced. [2] The public records for the meal expenses of [identified individuals] were not produced. [3] None of the hotel bills were produce[d] ... [4] None of the back-up receipts for car rental, gas, and parking were produced. [5] Redactions were made, but no exemptions were claimed. The City’s December 2nd, December 3rd and December 19th Responses In its December 2, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he records responsive to this request have been released to the Public Records Center. Click the link below to log in to the Records Center. The records are redacted to omit identifying information, including officer FIN numbers, frequent flyer numbers, personal credit card information, personal email addresses, and personal phone numbers and in accordance with exemption (c) of Massachusetts Public Records law. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c).” In its December 3, 2025 response, the City stated, “... there were records missing from your production in the zip file. All records were included in the GovQA production, and there was an error when I exported them to an email of PDFs, as per your preference ... Please find all responsive records enclosed, including ones that reflect [an identified individual’s] Hotel stay and [an identified individual’s] records. The receipts enclosed are all records responsive to this request.” In its December 19, 2025 response, the City further stated, “[t]he City has identified additional records and intends to provide them to the requester once they have been reviewed and redacted for exemptions. We have confirmed with relevant departments that there are no additional responsive records. The requester also asserts in his appeal that ‘redactions were made, but no exemptions were claimed’. However, exemption (c) was cited for redactions of

Grace Jung SPR25/3603 Page 3 December 22, 2025 officer FIN numbers, frequent flyer numbers, personal credit card information, personal email addresses, and personal phone numbers.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n. 13.; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Based on the City’s responses, where the City redacted officer FIN numbers, frequent flyer numbers, personal credit card information, personal email addresses, and personal phone numbers, I find the City may properly redact such information from the responsive records under the second clause of Exemption (c).

Grace Jung SPR25/3603 Page 4 December 22, 2025 Further, concerning Mr. Herman’s appeal indicating that certain records were not produced in response to his request, the City stated in its December 19th supplemental response, “[t]he City has identified additional records and intends to provide them to the requester once they have been reviewed and redacted for exemptions.” Conclusion Accordingly, where the City intends to provide additional responsive records, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Herman with said response to the request, provided 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Herman may 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: Colman Herman