Rebecca Spiess v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253654)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 24, 2025 SPR25/3654 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 Rebecca Spiess, of the Boston Globe, 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 2, 2025, Ms. Spiess requested the following: [1] ... emails from the following [identified 18 email addresses ending @boston. gov.] [2] ... emails with the word “Allandale” between Dec. 1, 2024 and May 1, 2025. [3] Emails with the word “Boylston” between Jan. 1, 2025 and July 1, 2025. [4] Emails with the words “hump” or “speed humps” between Dec. 1, 2024 and June 1, 2025. [5] Emails with the words “Hyde Park” between Oct. 1, 2024 and Dec. 1 2024; and between June 1, 2025 and Sept. 1, 2025. [6] Emails with the word “Flexpost” between February 1, 2025 and June 1, 2025. The City responded on October 2, 2025, and assigned reference number R005266-100225 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Spiess petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3654, 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 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 SPR25/3654 Page 2 December 24, 2025 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. Att’y 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 2nd Response In its October 2, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of the request. Current Appeal In her December 11, 2025 appeal, Ms. Spiess asserts, “[t]he city has not requested any extensions, and has affirmed that the records have been collected. Eight weeks later, this request has not been fulfilled. In emails and phone conversations, the city office has assured me they are in the final stages of processing the request. However, after two weeks of these responses, the records have not been released.” 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 for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for 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).

Grace Jung SPR25/3654 Page 3 December 24, 2025 Where Ms. Spiess’ request was originally submitted on October 2, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide any 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. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Spiess with a response to her 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. Ms. Spiess 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: Rebecca Spiess