MilNeil, Christian v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20260094)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 23, 2026 SPR26/0094 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 Christian MilNeil, of StreetsblogMASS, 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 19, 2025, Mr. MilNeil requested the following: [1] Emails addressed to or from [an identified individual] that contain the phrase “30-day review” or “bike lane” or “bus lane” and were sent between the dates Feb. 1, 2025 and March 31, 2025 (inclusive)[;] [2] Phone call records for [an identified individual] between the dates Feb. 21, 2025 and March 31, 2025 (inclusive)[;] [3] Electronic calendar appointment records for [an identified individual] for any appointments and meetings scheduled between the dates Feb. 21, 2025 and March 31, 2025 (inclusive)[;] [4] Any City of Boston shared Google documents or Google spreadsheets that contain the phrase “priority project review” or “priority project reviews”[;] [5] Detailed revision history and comments on any Google documents and spreadsheets that contain the phrase “priority project review” or “priority project reviews”[.] The City responded on December 4, 2025, assigning the request reference number R006321-111925. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. MilNeil petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0094, was opened as a result. 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 SPR26/0094 Page 2 January 23, 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. The City’s December 4th Response In its December 4, 2025 response, the City stated: At this time, the City is conducting a search of its databases and working with relevant departments to identify potentially responsive records. Following this search, a records custodian will need to then review and segregate the search results. Due to this ongoing search and subsequent records review, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to fifteen (15) additional business days to respond to your request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. MilNeil stated, “[a]t this point, 34 business days have elapsed since the original request, with no further response from the City of Boston.” 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:

Grace Jung SPR26/0094 Page 3 January 23, 2026 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. MilNeil’s request was submitted on November 19, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding 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 the requested 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 Mr. MilNeil 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. MilNeil 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: Christian MilNeil Ahir Verma