McCarter, Brian v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20260154)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2026 SPR26/0154 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Brian McCarter 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 December 9, 2025, Mr. McCarter requested, “the presentation for the square remaining on reed and the meeting recording.” The City provided multiple responses on December 9, 2025 and January 14, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0154, 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. 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

Jill Russell SPR26/0154 Page 2 January 30, 2026 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 December 9th and January 14th Responses On December 9, 2025, the City stated, “I’ve attached the recording of last night’s meeting[.]” In a December 9, 2025 email to the City, Mr. McCarter stated, “[c]an you send the presentation to read through?” On December 9, 2025, the City stated, “I’ve attached the presentation provided by the applicants as a PDF. There was a video in it that I’m not sure will work anymore…” In a December 9, 2025 email to the City, Mr. McCarter stated, “[c]an you send the text of the actual proposed change?” On December 9, 2025, the City stated, “[t]his proposal is to add a dedication square exemplified in the photo below. It would be a plaque placed beneath the street name, stating ‘Pastor Dr. Roberto Miranda Square.’” In a December 9, 2025 email to the City, Mr. McCarter stated, “[i]f it’s getting abutters meeting and has to go before zba or zoning, there will be a document detailing what is happening instead of having to paraphrase?” On January 14, 2026, the City stated the following: Dedications do not go before ZBA. The Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services offers a platform for collecting community feedback on street dedication proposals. To ensure residents’ voices are heard, we host a community meeting to provide space for input and discussion which applicants have to flyer for. The full process is as followed: [1] The liaison receives a request from a community member or group. This request must be forwarded to their Deputy Director[;] [2] The proponent must gather a petition with 200 signatures in support of the renaming. This must be accompanied by an autobiography and reasoning of the renaming[;] [3] The proponent will be directed to meet with the civic association or neighborhood council as necessary[;] [4] The Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services will conduct a community meeting with abutters in a 300 ft radius. The applicant will present their proposal and abutters will have the opportunity to comment[;]

Jill Russell SPR26/0154 Page 3 January 30, 2026 Before making a decision, we will encourage the applicant to meet with the Worcester Square Neighborhood Association as the closest civic to the proposed location. I’ll confirm with Andy and/or John whether they would like them to present at the next civic. In a January 14, 2026 email to the City, Mr. McCarter stated, “[w]here is the request, signature petition and formal proposal. Without those its not a lawful abutters meeting.” On January 14, 2026, the City stated, “[a]ll of these were submitted and are currently under review. They also posted flyers accordingly so the abutter’s meeting was indeed within right. Looping in our leadership team for awareness…” In a January 14, 2026 email to the City, Mr. McCarter stated, “I have asked for a copy of the actual instrument you[’re] asking for abutters to approve. You still have not provided them.” Current Appeal In his January 14, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. McCarter stated, “[o]n January 12, 2026, City officials acknowledged that the requested proposal and petition exist and were submitted, but stated they are ‘under review’ and have not been produced. Internal review is not a permissible basis for withholding public records…” The City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The City must either provide the requested records or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See 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”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. McCarter with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. McCarter may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Jill Russell SPR26/0154 Page 4 January 30, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter Eva Jones Sarah Sharpe Lindsey Santana Nakia Hill Ciara D’Amico