Hayes, Brandon v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20260242)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 6, 2026 SPR26/0242 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 Brandon Michael Hayes 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 4, 2025, Mr. Hayes requested the following: Records Requested (produce in PDF/CSV/native) [1] Auditor Access Requests: All letters, emails, subpoenas, or formal correspondence sent by the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) to your office/agency requesting audit access or information. [2] Responses/Denials: All replies, denials, or access-limitation responses provided to OSA, including any stated legal bases. [3] Internal/Inter-Agency Communications: Emails, memos, or messages that reference any of: “audit authority”, “auditor access”, “access denial”, “OSA”, “legislation” (re: Auditor powers), or “rally” (context: public discussions of Auditor authority). [4] Comptroller/Tracking Logs: Any logs, spreadsheets, dashboards, or lists noting departments or authorities that restricted OSA access and the cited legal basis. [5] Executive Coordination: Communications between your office and the Attorney General and/or the Governor’s Legal Counsel about Auditor scope, access, or limitations. 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 SPR26/0242 Page 2 February 6, 2026 [6] City of Boston Interfaces: Any correspondence or memoranda between your office and the City of Boston regarding Auditor authority or specific OSA requests. [7] City Auditor ↔ State Auditor: City audit plans, schedules, or correspondence with OSA. [8] Supervisor of Records (SEC/SPR) items: Appeals, determinations, or advisories in 2024–2025 that include the keywords “Auditor”, “audit authority”, or “access denied”. [9] Massachusetts Municipal Association Guidance (if in your custody): Any MMA memoranda or guidance to municipalities regarding how to respond to OSA audit requests. [10] Inspector General Materials (if in your custody): OIG investigations, referrals, or communications concerning obstruction or limitation of OSA access. Search Parameters (to speed fulfillment) Date range: Jan 1, 2023 – present. Locations: Agency email (M365/Exchange), Teams/Slack or similar, document repositories (SharePoint/Drive), and official text/SMS used for government business. Keywords (Boolean examples): (“audit authority” OR “auditor access” OR “access denial” OR “OSA” OR “State Auditor” OR “Dizoglio”) OR (auditor NEAR/3 access) OR (legislation NEAR/5 auditor) Custodians: Records custodians and any personnel likely to handle OSA requests (legal, compliance, executive, audit). I understand the City assigned reference number R005967-110425 to this request. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3635 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 19, 2025). In my December 19th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the City possessed additional records responsive to the request. Subsequently, the City responded on January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Hayes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0242, was opened as a result.

Grace Jung SPR26/0242 Page 3 February 6, 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 January 23rd Response In its January 23, 2026 response, the City explains the following: The City conducted a search of records within its custody and control and found that no records responsive to the request exist. Public Records Law indicates that the records custodian is only responsible for providing records that exist and are in the custody of the City (See: A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, p. 32, n.115). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of records in their custody in response to public records requests. 950 CMR 32.04(5). In compliance with Public Records Law, the City ran a search and found no records responsive to this request. Additionally, the search yielded no evidence that there has been any communication between the City and the Office of the State Auditor relating to the content of the request. The City maintains records for the City of Boston. Accordingly, the number of records identified by the Office of the State Auditor has no bearing on the volume of responsive records held by the City. Furthermore, the City satisfied its obligation to assist the requester through its recommendation to contact the State for additional information regarding any records held by that office.

Grace Jung SPR26/0242 Page 4 February 6, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Hayes contends that the City “reiterates its prior ‘no records’ position without curing the deficiencies identified in the appeal or providing a lawful description of any search conducted. This does not constitute compliance with the determination I prevailed on.” Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). In this case, where the City has confirmed that it does not possess responsive records, and the City has no duty to create records in response to a request, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Hayes is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brandon Michael Hayes