Lee, James v. Boston Planning & Development Agency (SPR 20260171)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2026 SPR26/0171 Danielle Cournoyer Public Records Specialist Boston Planning and Development Agency 1 City Hall Square, Floor 9 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Cournoyer: I have received the petition of James Lee appealing the response of the Boston Planning and Development Agency (Agency) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 17, 2025, Mr. Lee requested the following “pertaining to the deliberations of the Internal Evaluation Committee (‘IEC’) that reviewed courageous’ proposal in connection with the RFP on P[i]er 5, Charlestown Navy Yard”: [1] Internal memos of the IEC[;] [2] [R]elevant emails from IEC members to [five identified individuals]; [3] Stantec’s review of the financial aspects of both proposals (from Courageous and Charlestown Marina, respectively The Agency provided responses on January 5 and January 15, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Lee petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0171, 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. 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 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

Danielle Cournoyer SPR26/0171 Page 2 January 30, 2026 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 Agency’s January 5th and January 15th Responses In its January 5, 2026 response, the Agency provided responsive records. In a January 6, 2026 email to the Agency, Mr. Lee stated the following: I have reviewed the initial batch of documents you sent me, including “Pier 5 IEC Emails.” The emails referenced the following documents. Kindly send me a copy of each: [1] [P]age 10: [a] RFP[;] [b] Proposal 1: Charlestown Maria, LLC Proposal[;] [c] Proposal 2: Courageous Sailing Proposal[;] [d] Courageous Financial Workbook[;] [e] Price Proposal Form[;] [f] Submission Checklist[;] [g] Disclosure of Financial Information[;] [2] [P]age 11: [a] Standardized sheet for IEC members to submit questions about the proposals[;] [b] All questions submitted by IEC members using this standardized sheet[;] [3] [P]age 15: [a] Community Meeting Recording and presentation and chat documents[;] [b] Questions and Answers from the community to the proponents[;] [c] Public Comment Portal Comments[;] [d] Email Comments[;] [4] [P]age 19: [a] Courageous [Google Doc][;] [b] Charlestown Marina [Google Doc][;] [5] Stantec’s November 12, 2025 report, “Pier 5 Development Proposals Financial Review Final” is marked “Final”. The Revision Record on page 2 of the report indicates two earlier versions, “Final Draft” (dated 9/22) and “Draft” (dated 7/30). Kindly send me a copy of both reports[;]

Danielle Cournoyer SPR26/0171 Page 3 January 30, 2026 [6] [P]age 6: A copy of the agenda, list of attendees (in person, by videoconference, or dial-in) and meeting minutes/notes from the “Clarification Conversation” between BPDA Staff [three identified individuals] and Courageous [three identified individuals] on June 5, 2025[;] [7] Please confirm that the above-referenced meeting on June 5, 2025 was the one and only formal meeting/”Clarification Conversation” between BPDA Staff and Courageous. If there are other such meeting/”Clarifications Conversations” between June 5 through December 11, 2025, please send me the corresponding agenda, list of attendees (in person, by videoconference, or dial-in) and meeting minutes/notes. If not, please state so affirmatively[;] [8] [P]age 8: A copy of the agenda, list of attendees (in person, by videoconference, or dial-in) and meeting minutes/notes from the first meeting of the Evaluation Committee on June 26, 2025[;] [9] Please confirm that the above-referenced meeting on June 26, 2025 was the one and only formal meeting of the Evaluation Committee. If there are other such meetings between June 26 through December 11, 2025, please send me the corresponding agenda, list of attendees (in person, by videoconference, or dial-in) and meeting minutes/notes. If not, please state so affirmatively. In its January 15, 2026 response, the Agency provided responsive records and stated the following: [1] All published online: RFP & All Responses and Financials[;] [2] Page 11: Appears on page 12-14 of “Pier 5 IEC Emails.pdf”[;] [3] Page 15: [a] Community Meeting recording, presentation and chat documents: published online[;] [b] Questions and Answers from the community to the proponents: public online[;] [c] Portal Public Comment public online[;] [d] Email Comments see: Pier 5 Public Comments Emails.pdf [4] Page 19[:] [a] Courageous – Appears on page 20 of PDF[;] [b] Charlestown Marina – Appears on page 24 of PDF[;] [5] Stantec Report “Pier 5 Development Proposals Financial Review” [a] 7/25 Draft[;] [b] 9/22 Draft[;] [6] Page 6: June 5, 2025, Meeting w/ Courageous [a] Meeting Invite (with lists of attendees)[;] [b] All meeting documents[;] [7] See Meeting Calender Invitations (with list of attendees) [a] Courageous 2025 Meetings.pdf [b] You can direct any clarifying questions to Ben Merker[;] [8] Page 8: June 26, 2025, Evaluation Committee Meeting [a] See pages 7 & 8 for meeting Invite (with list of attendees)[;]

Danielle Cournoyer SPR26/0171 Page 4 January 30, 2026 [b] No further records[;] [9] You can direct any clarifying questions to Ben Merker. Current Appeal In his January 16, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Lee stated the following: In particular, the outstanding issues include, but are not limited to: [1] Identification of actual attendees (not just invites) at Internal Evaluation Committee meetings for which invitations are documented[;] [2] Draft or working versions of evaluation materials, including collaborative Google Doc documents referenced in agency emails, reflecting individual Internal Evaluation Committee member input[;] [3] Meeting minutes, summaries, or notes corresponding to documented meetings between BPDA staff, the Internal Evaluation Committee and proposers, including records reflecting whether and how the Technical Team’s document titled “2025.06.05_Clarification conversation questions-topics.pdf”—which identified either “First Priority Questions” and either “Second Priority Questions” for Courageous—was used. Specifically, whether those questions were posed to Courageous at the June 5, 2025 meeting or at subsequent meetings on July 9, October 29, November 7, or December 1, 2025, and whether records exist summarizing Courageous’ responses and their incorporation into the final Internal Evaluation Committee report. Based on Mr. Lee’s petition and the Agency’s responses, it is unclear whether the Agency possesses additional responsive records. 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, the Agency must clarify whether it possesses additional responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Agency is ordered to provide Mr. Lee 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. Lee may appeal the substantive nature of the Agency’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Danielle Cournoyer SPR26/0171 Page 5 January 30, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Lee