Colman Herman v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20253801)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3801 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 assigned this request reference number R006237-111725. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3603 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22, 2025). In my December 22nd determination, I found that the City may redact officer FIN numbers, frequent flyer numbers, personal credit card information, personal email addresses, and personal phone numbers under the second clause of Exemption (c). Further, the City advised that it intended to provide the remaining records once they have been reviewed and redacted for exemptions. The City provided a response on December 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3801, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a supplemental response on December 30, 2025, which Mr. Herman appealed. 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 SPR25/3801 Page 2 January 8, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his December 23, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Herman states the following: [1] Only two hotel bills were produced, but about 15 people went to Nova Scotia. I would like all the hotel bills. [2] The names of the individuals on the two hotel bills were redacted. But that information is a public record and I would like it. [3] The trip to Nova Scotia took place from November 9 to November 12, 2025. As noted, about 15 city employees were on the trip, and thus there should have been at least 30 bills for meals. But there were only five in the production. I would like all of the meal bills. [4] A Mastercard Jet Blue bill was on the third and fourth pages of the production. Twenty lines were redacted and 12 lines were not redacted. There is no apparent reason why some lines were redacted and other lines were not redacted. And so the redacted lines should be unredacted. The City’s December 22nd and December 30th Responses In its December 22, 2025 response, the City stated, “[a]dditional records responsive to request R006237-111725 are attached to this email.” In its December 30, 2025 response, the City stated as follows: Regarding #1 and #3, the City of Boston maintains that all responsive records

Grace Jung SPR25/3801 Page 3 January 8, 2026 were produced. The individuals produced records consistent with City policy for reimbursement. We provided Mr. Herman with those records on December 2, and additional records on December 22. If, for example, receipts for meals do not exist for a specific employee, it is because that employee did not submit for reimbursement. Regarding #2, this is not true. The names are clearly unredacted. Regarding #4, those charges appear to be personal in nature for that individual (as it is the individual’s personal credit card) and unrelated to City activities. The City maintains their exemption (c) claim on those redactions. 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

Grace Jung SPR25/3801 Page 4 January 8, 2026 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. In its December 30, 2025 response, the City states, “[t]he City maintains their exemption (c) claim on those redactions.” In his December 31, 2025 appeal, Mr. Herman asserts, “[t]he names of the individual is not listed on the credit card statement.... Where is the expense report this individual submitted to get reimbursed? The city reimbursement policy does not allow for reimbursement based on just credit card statements.” Upon review of the responsive records, it does not appear that names were redacted on the credit card statements. As such, I find the basis of Mr. Herman’s appeal regarding this issue unclear. Mr. Herman may wish to clarify this. With regards to the redactions on the statements, where these charges are personal in nature, I find the City has met its burden to redact such portions under the second clause of Exemption (c). Further, based on Mr. Herman’s claims, in conjunction with the City’s responses, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to his request. Specifically, the City must clarify whether it possesses an expense report submitted by the identified individual. 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). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any additional responsive records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Herman 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. 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