Matthew Nadan-Buresh v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253694)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 30, 2025 SPR25/3694 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 Matthew Nadan-Buresh 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 15, 2025, Mr. Nadan-Buresh requested, “a copy of IAFF Local 718 – (Grievance #09-0663) v. City of Boston transcript testimony made by [an identified individual], and the Arbitrators award in Case# 01-24-0006-1003. IAFF local 718 v. City of Boston regarding [and identified individual’s] termination from the Boston Fire Department…” The City responded on October 15, and November 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Nadan-Buresh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3694, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided an additional response on December 19, 2025. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Nadan-Buresh status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 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 SPR25/3694 Page 2 December 30, 2025 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. See 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. See 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 15th and November 5th Responses In its October 15, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of Mr. Nadan- Buresh’s request assigning it the reference number R005535-101525. In its November 5, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In his December 14, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Nadan-Buresh objected to the City withholding responsive records under Exemption (c) and stated the following: The questions I have and I believe are in the public’s interest to know are: [1] Do firefighters have access to data collected during emergency calls? What type of access do they have, what are the policies and safeguards in place to make sure this information is not improperly accessed, and was it effective in this case[?] [2]What access do firefighters have to criminal records, what policies are in place to prevent improper access and was that effective in this case[?] [3] I continue to be harassed to an extent where I may need to take legal action. I would like to know what was found in the hearing in order to pursue legal action if necessary. I would also like to know that my family and I are safe in reporting this harassment and the findings of the above two questions may impact how I report ongoing harassment. In its December 19, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he questions are a substantial modification to the original request. In addition, they are not a request for records, but are a series of inquiries. If you have a public records request we encourage you to submit your request

Grace Jung SPR25/3694 Page 3 December 30, 2025 to the portal. Furthermore, the City reiterates its stance that these records are withheld under exemption (c) as they are for the purposes of determining employment.” No Duty to Create Records or Answer Questions Please be advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Consequently, I find the City is not required to provide answers to the questions included in Mr. Nadan-Buresh’s modified December 14th request. 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). First Clause – Personnel While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to

Grace Jung SPR25/3694 Page 4 December 30, 2025 include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. Under Exemption (c), the City states, “[t]hese records are withheld in their entirety as they relate to personnel records for the purposes of determining employment in accordance with exemption (c)…Any transcript testimony for IAFF Local 718 – (Grievance #09-0663) v. City of Boston and the Arbitrators award in Case #01-24-0006-1003 are withheld. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual.” Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Particularly, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. Additionally, it is unclear how the record can be withheld in its entirety. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Nadan-Buresh with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Nadan-Buresh