Roby, Peter v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20260553)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 2, 2026 SPR26/0553 Grace Jung Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Peter Roby, of The Bay State Banner, 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 December 15, 2025, Mr. Roby requested: . . . records about Go Boston 2030 projects and the Go Boston 2030 ReVision. . . . [1] Capital Spending (actual and planned) for Go Boston 2030 projects between Fiscal Year 2018 and Fiscal Year 2030. [2] The Boston Transportation Department’s methodology for prioritizing underserved communities in Capital Planning, as recommended by Go Boston 2030. [3] Contracts, agreements and grant reports for the Barr Foundation Go Boston 2030 Tracking and Communication Grant, between Fiscal Year 2018 and Fiscal Year 2025. [4] Public meeting notices, attendance sheets, and presentations for Go Boston 2030 ReVision community engagement. If it exists, any report summarizing community engagement for Go Boston 2030 ReVision. [5] Contracts, solicitations, bids and agreements for consultants involved with Go Boston 2030 ReVision. [6] Project Specific Records – Reports, presentations, planning, contracts or records of project activity pertaining to the following projects proposed by Go 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 SPR26/0553 Page 2 March 2, 2026 Boston 2030, for which little evidence exists online of activity after the report’s publication: [a] Fairmount Greenway Neighborways, [b] Smart Signal Districts in Nubian Square, Dorchester Avenue, Blue Hill Avenue and any corridors identified as Smart Signal Corridors, [c] Green Line Extension to Hyde Square, [d] Columbia Road Greenway, [e] Commonwealth Avenue beyond Packards Corner (also known as Commonwealth Avenue Phase 3 and 4), [f] Longwood Transit Hub, [g] LMA to JFK Rapid Bus via Dudley and Uphams, [h] Mattapan to LMA Rapid Bus, [i] Improved Silver Line: Dudley to Downtown, [j] Seaport to Dorchester/Widett Urban Rail, [k] Dudley Square Enhanced Transit Hub (now known as Nubian Square), [l] Sullivan Square Enhanced Mobility Hub, [m] Smart High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Interstates, [n] Massachusetts Avenue Rapid Bus, [o] Multiuse Path Extension to Blue Hills (also known as a Green Link on Blue Hill Avenue or Cummings Highway), [p] West Station Rapid Bus to LMA, Kendall, Harvard Square. The City responded on December 15, 2025, and assigned reference number R006791- 121525 to this request. The City provided multiple further responses from December 30, 2025 through February 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Roby petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0553, 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

Grace Jung SPR26/0553 Page 3 March 2, 2026 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Roby contends, “[p]resently, the City refuses to ‘identify a reasonable timeframe in which it will produce the records.’ Instead, it offers future updates about an indefinite review. Ironically, the City does not even provide these updates in a timely fashion. Nor has Boston identified the timeframe in which it will produce the records. . . .” The City’s Responses On December 15, 2025, the City acknowledged receipt of Mr. Roby’s request. On December 30, 2025, the City stated, “[d]ue to the nature of your request, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process your request.” In a series of responses from January 21, 2026 through January 30, 2026, the City stated that the records are currently under review. On February 13, 2026, the City provided responsive records and stated, “[a]dditional records will be released to you on a rolling basis to allow for both adequate review and to ensure that your request is fulfilled.” The City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive records. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Based on Mr. Roby’s appeal petition, he does not appear to be appealing the redactions under Exemption (c). Timeline for Providing Responsive Records The City is advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a 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 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. Roby’s request was submitted on December 15, 2025, and the City has not

Grace Jung SPR26/0553 Page 4 March 2, 2026 provided the remaining records responsive to the request, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to provide the outstanding records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided 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. Roby 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. Roby may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Peter C. Roby