Aulley, Ralph v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20260070)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 23, 2026 SPR26/0070 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Records Access Officer Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of Ralph Aulley appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 11, 2025, Mr. Aulley requested the following: [A]ll audio files voiced by [an identified individual] that are stored on, used by, or deployed to the automated announcement systems on Red Line trains, including: [1] Station stop announcements . . .[;] [2] Door operation announcements[;] [3] Safety, informational, and transfer announcements[;] [4] All audio files present on the onboard systems of Red Line trains equipped with automated announcements (including the 01800-series and 01900-series fleets). This request includes any files that exist on the systems, even if they are rarely triggered, rarely played, or not typically heard by passengers, but it does not include unused or scrapped internal recordings. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3717 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025). In my December 31st determination, I found that the MBTA did not meet its burden to withhold records under Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the MBTA responded on January 7, 2026. Unsatisfied with the MBTA’s response, Mr. Aulley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0070, was opened 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0070 Page 2 January 23, 2026 as a result. While this appeal was pending, the MBTA reiterated the position articulated in its January 7, 2026 response in an email to this office on January 21, 2026. Specifically, a representative for the MBTA stated, “[a]s stated in our earlier appeal response, all of the recordings must be withheld for security reasons.” 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. 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. 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 MBTA’s January 7th Response In its previous response, the MBTA denied Mr. Aulley’s request in its entirety and cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law in support of its position. In its January 7, 2026 response, the MBTA provided additional information regarding its claims under Exemption (n) for withholding records responsive to Mr. Aulley’s request. Current Appeal In his January 8, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Aulley objects to the MBTA’s denial of his request under Exemption (n). He states, “[t]he [MBTA] argues that the content of these audio files (station names and safety instructions) is so sensitive that its release would [‘]jeopardize public safety.[’] However, the MBTA voluntarily broadcasts this exact content to hundreds of thousands of riders every single day. . . .” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to:

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0070 Page 3 January 23, 2026 records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA at 290. In its January 7, 2026 response, under Exemption (n), the MBTA provided the following: As an initial matter, and in response to the Supervisor’s determination, the MBTA possesses audio files that match each of the four categories identified in your request. All such responsive records are exempt from disclosure under . . . Massachusetts General Laws ch. 4, sec. 7, clause 26 (n). . . . Here, the records requested – “Station stop announcements ... Door operation announcements ... Safety, informational, and transfer announcements ... [and] All audio files present on the onboard systems of Red Line trains” - are procedures, security measures, emergency preparedness records relating to the security or safety of persons, buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the Commonwealth. The recordings provide guidance and instruction to MBTA passengers in navigating the system

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0070 Page 4 January 23, 2026 safely and assist with passenger safety in the event of any transportation-related incidents. A terrorist could misuse these recordings to disrupt transportation and inject chaos into any emergency where clear instructions are needed to ensure the safety of any person listening to MBTA instructions. This is sufficient contextual and factual support for the MBTA’s position and the judgement of the records custodian that the recordings must be withheld. Based on the MBTA’s response, I find that the MBTA did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested records, in their entirety, pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the MBTA has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records are “likely to jeopardize public safety.” See PETA at 289-90. It is also unclear if the MBTA could provide segregable portions of the responsive records. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The MBTA must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the MBTA is ordered to provide Mr. Aulley 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. Mr. Aulley may appeal the substantive nature of the MBTA’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ralph Aulley