Aulley, Ralph v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (SPR 20260438)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0438 Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Records Access Officer Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Ciollo: I have received the petition of Ralph Aulley appealing the response of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 11, 2025, Mr. Aulley requested the following: [A]ll audio files voiced by [an identified individual] that are stored on, used by, or deployed to the automated announcement systems on Red Line trains, including: [1] Station stop announcements . . .[;] [2] Door operation announcements[;] [3] Safety, informational, and transfer announcements[;] [4] All audio files present on the onboard systems of Red Line trains equipped with automated announcements (including the 01800-series and 01900-series fleets). This request includes any files that exist on the systems, even if they are rarely triggered, rarely played, or not typically heard by passengers, but it does not include unused or scrapped internal recordings. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3717 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025) and SPR26/0070 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 23, 2026). In my January 23rd determination, I found that the MBTA did not meet its burden to withhold records, in their entirety, under Exemption (n) of the Public Records 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

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0438 Page 2 February 24, 2026 Law. Subsequently, the MBTA responded on February 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the MBTA’s response, Mr. Aulley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0438, 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 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 MBTA’s February 6th Response In its previous responses, the MBTA denied Mr. Aulley’s request in its entirety and cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law in support of its position. In its February 6, 2026 response, the MBTA provided additional information regarding its claims under Exemption (n) for withholding records responsive to Mr. Aulley’s request. Current Appeal In his February 7, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Aulley objects to the MBTA’s denial of his request under Exemption (n). He states, “the MBTA’s response is a near-verbatim reiteration of the ‘Public Safety/Chaos’ argument this Office already rejected in Order SPR26/0070. . .” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings,

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0438 Page 3 February 24, 2026 structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA at 290. In its February 6, 2026 response, under Exemption (n), the MBTA provided the following: To address your concern, the MBTA retains all responsive recordings and they will not be “lost” even when phased out or replaced by other recordings/ announcements. If you are still interested in obtaining copies of the records, we must still deny access to them. The Supervisor of Records asked the MBTA to address two points: [1] “how disclosure of the records are ‘likely to jeopardize public safety’” and[;] [2] “if the MBTA could provide segregable portions of the responsive records.” To address the first point, the provided factual heft behind its reasoning in its earlier responses, which are incorporated by reference. We cannot allow these recordings to be available to members of the public where a bad actor could use them to disrupt operations, and therefore jeopardize safety. For example, a bad actor could play a conflicting message or directive in an emergency situation,

Julie A. Ciollo, Esq. SPR26/0438 Page 4 February 24, 2026 when clear instructions from MBTA personnel are vital to ensure safety. Given the rise of artificial intelligence and the ability to create realistic recordings using voice models, a bad actor could take the requested recordings and use them to create fake MBTA announcements. The use of these fake announcements could cause severe operational disruption and jeopardize public safety. Given the ease with which a bad actor could impede the MBTA’s ability to safely transport its customers and maintain order and safety in emergency situations, the MBTA has exercised reasonable judgment in determining that disclosure of the requested recordings is likely to jeopardize public safety. Next, the MBTA is unable to provide segregable portions of the records. All recordings must be withheld given the concerns stated above. In its previous January 7th response, the MBTA explained that the records “…are procedures ... relating to the security or safety of persons, . . . transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure ... [which] provide guidance and instruction to MBTA passengers in navigating the system safely and assist with passenger safety in the event of any transportation-related incidents[.]” As such, I find the MBTA has shown how the requested records are the type of records listed under Exemption (n). Further, where the MBTA has explained that a bad actor could use these automated announcements to disrupt operations and disclosure could impede the MBTA’s ability to safely transport its customers and maintain order and safety in emergency situations, I find the MBTA has met its burden to withhold the requested records, in their entirety, pursuant to Exemption (n). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Aulley 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: Ralph Aulley