Brady, Michael v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20260311)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0311 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 Michael Brady 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 October 15, 2025, Mr. Brady requested: …all records related to the installation and subsequent removal of speed humps on Allandale Street, Boston, MA, conducted in January and February 2025 as part of the City’s “Safety Surge” traffic-calming initiative. Specifically, I am requesting: [1] All purchase orders, invoices, and vendor bills associated with the procurement, installation, and removal of the Allandale Street speed humps[;] [2] All work orders, job tickets, or internal crew logs documenting City labor or contractor labor related to this work[;] [3] Any emails, memos, or reports generated by the Boston Transportation Department, Public Works Department, or Chief of Streets Office that discuss the cost, scope, or decision-making related to the installation or removal of these speed humps[;] [4] Any contracts or task orders (including change orders) issued to any vendor or contractor for this work. On October 22, 2025, Mr. Brady modified his request to: [1] Records of payment, invoices, purchase orders, or work orders issued by the Boston Transportation Department or Public Works Department for the installation of speed humps on Allendale Street between December 1, 2024, and February 1, 2025. 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 SPR26/0311 Page 2 February 10, 2026 [2] Records of payment, invoices, purchase orders, or work orders related to the removal of those same speed humps between February 1, 2025, and March 31, 2025. [3] Any internal emails or memoranda between staff within BTD and/or Public Works that specifically reference both “Allendale Street” and “speed humps” during the same date ranges listed above. On November 20, 2025, Mr. Brady further modified his request to: [1] Records of payment, invoices, purchase orders, or work orders issued by the Boston Transportation Department or Public Works Department for the installation of speed humps on Allendale Street between December 1, 2024, and February 1, 2025. [2] Records of payment, invoices, purchase orders, or work orders related to the removal of those same speed humps between February 1, 2025, and March 31, 2025. The City responded on October 22, 2025, January 7, 2026, and January 28, 2026, and assigned reference number R005511-101525 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Brady petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0311, 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. 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.

Grace Jung SPR26/0311 Page 3 February 10, 2026 The City’s Responses On October 22, 2025, the City stated, “[y]our request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations as it is overly broad and vague. Specifically, you request records ‘associated with,’ ‘related to,’ and that ‘discuss’ a particular project. … In order for our department to fulfill your request, you must narrow the scope of your request.” On November 19, 2025, the City stated, “[a] search run in accordance with your modified request still returned an overwhelming number of results. The most effective way to reduce the number results to a manageable volume would be to provide us specific email addresses. We’d appreciate if you could provide this information so we can proceed with your request.” On January 7, 2026, the City stated, “I have followed up with the department assigned to your request, and they are currently reviewing potentially responsive records. Your request is being processed, and the records will be provided as soon as they become available. Thank you for your patience as we work to complete this request.” On January 28, 2026, the City stated, “[t]he records responsive to your request are being reviewed and will be released to you within the next week.” 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: 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. Brady submitted his modified request on November 20th, 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). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided

Grace Jung SPR26/0311 Page 4 February 10, 2026 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. Brady 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. Brady may further 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: Michael Brady