Roscoe, Jules v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20260410)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0410 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 Jules Roscoe, of the Boston Guardian, 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 January 9, 2026, Jules Roscoe submitted a request for records, and on January 20, 2026, modified the request as follows: Any emails between any combination of the following individuals: [a list of named individuals and their emails], or the BPS Capital Planning email ... that include the keywords “White Stadium”, “stadium”, “$” or “estimate”, dated between 1/1/25 and 1/9/26. - Any emails sent from any of the preceding email addresses to the domain “@nwslboston.com” within the same preceding date range, containing any of the same preceding keywords. The City responded on January 9, January 20, and January 26, 2026, provided a fee estimate, and assigned reference number R000125-010926 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, and objecting to the fees, Jules Roscoe petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0410, 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). 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 SPR26/0410 Page 2 February 20, 2026 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. Fee Estimates - Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The January 26th Fee Estimate In its January 26, 2026 response, the City provides a total fee estimate of $1,186.67. In support of its fee estimate, the City provides the following information: The City has conducted a search of its electronic databases to identify potentially responsive records. This search yielded 2,968 records. It is apparent from an initial review that these records contain material that the law requires be redacted or segregated. See G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). For example, these records contain: Privileged attorney-client communications. Records responsive to your request include communications between City attorneys and their clients, as well as communications among City employees about advice provided by their attorneys.

Grace Jung SPR26/0410 Page 3 February 20, 2026 This material is protected by the attorney-client privileged and must be segregated and redacted before records could be released. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 449-50 (2007). . . . For your request, the City must review all of the records before they can be released. First, the City must compile the responsive records by reviewing all records to determine which are responsive to your request and which are not. Second, the City must redact and segregate the records to ensure material protected by law is not released. In this request, the records contain communications between a City of Boston attorney and employee or a City of Boston employee conveying a City attorney’s legal opinion. Such records must be segregated and redacted for confidential information before they can be released. The City estimates that staff can compile, redact, and segregate approximately one record per minute. At this rate, based on the number of potentially responsive records noted above, the City expects it will take 49.47 hours to compile, redact, and segregate these records. A records custodian must assess the lowest hourly rate of a person capable of performing the task when it issues a fee estimate. 950 CMR 332.07(2)(i). The lowest hourly rate for a person capable of reviewing the records responsive to your request is approximately $25 per hour. At a rate of $25 per hour, accounting for the first two hours without charge, the corresponding cost of fulfilling your request would be $1,186.67. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate In its January 26th fee estimate, the City has confirmed that it is not assessing fees for the first two hours of work, and has explained the tasks involved in searching for and compiling the records. Additionally, the City has confirmed that it is assessing fees at a rate equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the tasks, and has explained that the segregation and redaction is required by law under the attorney-client privilege. In light of the City’s January 26th response, I find the City has met its burden to explain how it has provided a reasonable fee estimate for the production of records responsive to this request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). This office encourages Jules Roscoe and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Jules Roscoe may consider narrowing the scope of the request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Grace Jung SPR26/0410 Page 4 February 20, 2026 Conclusion As set forth above, I find the City has met its burden in responding to the request at this time. Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jules Roscoe