Victor Quiñonez v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253661)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3661 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 Victor Quiñonez 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 September 9, 2025, Mr. Quiñonez requested the following: [1] Any and all email communications, meeting notes, memoranda, or documentation relating to the review, discussion, or feedback regarding [an identified individual]’s applications to the Un-monument: Call to Artists – Temporary Monuments (Opportunity 1) and Un-monument: Call to Artists – Temporary Monuments 2025, for his project “Elevar La Cultura.” [2] Specifically, any and all records that reference, imply, or discuss concerns raised about the project in relation to Indigenous populations or communities, including communications between City staff, consultants, advisory committees, or other third parties. [3] Any records documenting feedback that was either:  Directly provided to the applicant, or  Discussed internally with the intent or expectation that it would be provided to the applicant, even if it was not ultimately communicated. [4] Responsive records created:  Between the date of submission of the application (4/23/2024) and the date of rejection (4/30/2025); and  Within 90 days following the rejection date, insofar as they reference or discuss any concerns, implications, or characterizations suggesting that the 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 SPR25/3661 Page 2 December 23, 2025 project was objectionable, inappropriate, or otherwise problematic in relation to Indigenous communities or populations. [5] Any and all marketing materials, guidance documents, presentations, or communications distributed to grantees, applicants, or other third parties that include or reference “Elevar La Cultura” and/or [an identified individual] by name or likeness as an exemplar or model for preparing or presenting marketing and project assets, whether issued and/or distributed before or after the rejection of the application. [6] Any records, communications, or documentation relating to the Boston Art Commission’s approval of the project for final design, as well as any subsequent departmental discussions, correspondence, actions, or decisions concerning that approval and the department’s later rejection of the project. Subsequently, on September 11, 2025, Mr. Quiñonez modified his request as follows: Please search records created, sent, or received by [four identified individuals] and any other City staff or consultants within the Mayor’s Office of Arts and Culture assigned to the Unmonument Program [including]… [1] Emails Copies of emails sent or received between April 23, 2024 and April 30, 2025 containing the keywords “Elevar La Cultura” or “[an identified individual.]” [2] Meeting notes, agendas, memoranda Copies of meeting notes, agendas, or memoranda created between April 23, 2024 and April 30, 2025 that reference Elevar La Cultura or [an identified individual]. [3] Follow-up communications Copies of emails or memoranda created between May 1, 2025 and July 30, 2025 that reference Elevar La Cultura or [an identified individual], including any mention of concerns about Indigenous populations or communities. [4] Marketing and promotional materials Copies of marketing materials, branding guides, guidance documents, presentations, or other promotional assets created or distributed between April 30, 2024 and September 9, 2025 that feature or reference Elevar La Cultura or [an identified individual] by name, likeness, or artwork.

Grace Jung SPR25/3661 Page 3 December 23, 2025 [5] Distribution records Copies of any emails, cover messages, or transmittal documents accompanying the distribution of the marketing or promotional materials listed above, including records that indicate the date, recipients, or manner of distribution. [6] Boston Art Commission records Copies of records of the Boston Art Commission’s vote or approval of Elevar La Cultura for final design, and any subsequent departmental communications or actions concerning that approval (limited to April 2024 – June 2025). The City responded on September 11, 2025, October 14, 2025, October 20, 2025, and October 23, 2025, assigning the request reference number R004695-090925. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Quiñonez petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3661, 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 September 11th, October 14th, October 20th, and October 23rd Responses In its September 11, 2025 response, a City employee stated, “[t]hank you for your patience... I have alerted the staff of your narrowing and they will begin working on your request.”

Grace Jung SPR25/3661 Page 4 December 23, 2025 Following multiple update inquiries from Mr. Quiñonez, the City responded on October 14, 2025, “[t]he staff assigned to your request are currently reviewing the records responsive to your request.” In its October 20, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]hank you for your continued patience. At this time, the City of Boston is actively reviewing approximately 266 records that are potentially responsive to your request. These records include email communications that must be reviewed for personally identifiable information under exemption (c).” Mr. Quiñonez subsequently offered to “clarify or narrow further” his request, and asked the City to provide an estimated completion date. In its October 23, 2025 response, a City employee stated, “I am unable to provide an estimated completion date for our review of these records. However, I can let you know that we will be able to update you within 2 weeks.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Quiñonez stated, “…the City has exceeded the statutory maximum timeframe for municipal responses and has not provided a reasonable justification for continued delay. I believe this constitutes a constructive denial of access to public records.” 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). Where Mr. Quiñonez’s request was modified on September 11, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, nor confirmed it is withholding responsive records pursuant to an exemption, 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 the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)

Grace Jung SPR25/3661 Page 5 December 23, 2025 (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 Mr. Quiñonez 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. Quiñonez 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: Victor Quiñonez Paulo Pena