Brandon M. Hayes v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253645)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3645 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 Brandon Michael Hayes appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 17, 2025, Mr. Hayes submitted the following two requests to the City: [1] Dear Officials, My name is Brandon M. Hayes, and I am writing in my capacity as: President, Natural Law Institute, A lifelong Massachusetts native and current resident, and Defendant, Hayes v. Eastern Bank, Federal Case No. 1:25-cv-12208-WGY (D. Mass.) — originally filed in Boston Municipal Court and removed to federal court on August 6, 2025, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, 1443 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986. This letter serves as both a formal inquiry and a whistleblower-style notice regarding a suspected misapplication of SEC Rule 15c2-12, specifically related to the City of Boston’s non-disclosure of active federal civil rights litigation with direct implications for bondholder risk and municipal creditworthiness. Mr. Hayes goes on to list a series of “Key Facts” and “Formal Questions.” The City responded on September 23, 2025, and assigned reference number R004969- 091725 to this request. [2] Please consider this my third open request, submitted in good faith as part of a legal and educational inquiry into public financial stewardship and debt disclosures. Third Request — General Obligation Bonds (1965–2025) Please provide complete, itemized, and certified records concerning City of Boston General Obligation Bonds and related debt instruments issued, refunded, or matured between 1965 and September 2025, categorized as follows: 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 SPR25/3645 Page 2 December 23, 2025 Mr. Hayes goes on to list four categories with approximately 24 sub-categories relating to bonds. The City responded on September 30, 2025, and assigned reference number R004970- 091725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Hayes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3645, 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. Fee Estimates - Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Grace Jung SPR25/3645 Page 3 December 23, 2025 A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Hayes requests “that Requests R004969-091725 and R004970- 091725 should proceed as a single consolidated appeal, as they arise from the same subject matter and were handled in a materially similar manner.” Mr. Hayes goes on to argue the following: The requests concerning Boston’s Rule 15c2-12 continuing-disclosure materials (R004969/70-091725) touch records relating not only to historical bond issuances but also to material-event reporting—including adverse events, operational disruptions, and litigation that may affect municipal financial or legal posture. The City’s inability to produce: an index, a segregability analysis, or any draft or final disclosure materials creates a problem beyond the handling of the request itself. It implies the absence of a functional process for maintaining or retrieving documents associated with adverse public events. This is not a securities question for your office; it is a fundamental public-records issue. If adverse-event materials are not disclosed and also not maintained, the deficiency becomes a recordkeeping and custodial matter squarely within the statute. Item 1 (R004969-091725): The City’s September 23rd Response In its September 23, 2025 response, regarding Part 1 of the Request, the City explains the following: Upon review, the City has determined that this is not a public records request. This request will be closed. If you have legal matters or claims you wish to pursue with the City of Boston, you may contact the Law Department directly. No Duty to Answer Questions Mr. Hayes is 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 questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In this case, where Item 1 of the request consists of the text of a letter, including a series of statements and questions, and is not a request for Public Records, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to Item 1.

Grace Jung SPR25/3645 Page 4 December 23, 2025 Item 2 (R004970-091725): The City’s September 30th Fee Estimate In its September 30, 2025 response, the City gives a total fee estimate of $15,000. The City provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: On September 18, 2025, the City reached out to you in an attempt to modify your request. While the request has been reorganized, the City has conducted a search of its electronic databases to identify potentially responsive records. This search yielded 2,500,000 records. Additionally, the City determined that there would be approximately 160,000 potentially responsive records in addition to those from the electronic databases. To compile and reproduce the records themselves, City employee(s) would need to search for and download the individual records from the electronic database, identify, prepare, and upload physical records, and review each record for potential redaction. The Massachusetts Public Records Law provides that municipalities may charge requestors for the time required “to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested.” G.L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Municipalities may not charge for the first two hours spent on a request and may only charge for segregation or redaction when such segregation or redaction is required by law. Id. Municipalities may charge the hourly rate of the employee who fulfilled a request, but may not charge more than $25 per hour without permission from the Supervisor of Records. Id. The City estimates that staff can search and compile approximately one record every 1 minute. At this rate, based on the number of potentially responsive reports noted above, the City expects it will take 44,333.33 hours to search for and compile the records. A records custodian must assess the lowest hourly rate of a person capable of performing the task when it issues a fee estimate. 950 CMR 332.07(2)(i). The public records law permits a custodian to assess $25 per hour for such review. 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(m). The lowest hourly rate for a person capable of reviewing the records responsive to your request is approximately $25 per hour. At a rate of $25 per hour, accounting for the first two hours without charge, the corresponding cost of fulfilling your request would be over $15,000. The City would be happy to work with you to narrow your request. This could reduce the number of records to search for and compile as well as the corresponding fee. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames 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:

Grace Jung SPR25/3645 Page 5 December 23, 2025 [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 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. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. Hayes and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Hayes may consider narrowing the scope of his request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Hayes and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Hayes may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Grace Jung SPR25/3645 Page 6 December 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Michael Hayes