McCarter, Brian v. Boston, City of (SPR 20260702)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 11, 2026 SPR26/0702 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 Brian McCarter 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 29, 2026, Mr. McCarter requested “all records relating to any actual, proposed, draft, interim, or contemplated agreement or arrangement between the City of Boston (including any department, office, or agency) and the Boston Family Days / Boston Family Museum, including but not limited to:” [1] All draft agreements, whether complete or incomplete, including all versions and revisions. [2] Any memoranda of understanding, term sheets, letters of intent, side letters, or informal written arrangements, whether draft or final. [3] All emails, attachments, and correspondence discussing proposed terms, scope, obligations, indemnification, insurance, licensing, access, or use of City property. [4] Internal City records reflecting approval, review, negotiation, or authorization of any such arrangement, whether or not a final agreement was executed. [5] Any documents reflecting an agreement in principle, course of dealing, or operational understanding, regardless of whether the documents are labeled as an “agreement.” This request includes records in draft form and records that were never finalized or executed. On February 13, 2026, Mr. McCarter clarified his request as follows:  Date range: January 1, 2023 – present. 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 SPR26/0702 Page 2 March 11, 2026  The request applies to records maintained by any City department, office, or agency that negotiated, reviewed, approved, authorized, or implemented any agreement or arrangement with Boston Family Days / Boston Family Museum, including departments responsible for property use, permitting, cultural affairs, or event coordination. The City responded on February 12, 2026 and February 26, 2026, and assigned reference number R000486-012926 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. McCarter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0702, 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. The City’s February 12th and February 26th Responses On February 12, 2026, the City stated: Your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). First, please provide the date range for which you seek records. In order to conduct an email search responsive to part 3 of your request, we require a specific date range, key words, and the emails and/or names of the City of Boston employees whose communications you would like us to search for.

Grace Jung SPR26/0702 Page 3 March 11, 2026 In parts 4 and 5 of your request, you seek records “reflecting” agreements or understandings between the City of Boston and entities participating in Boston Family Days. Requests that call for all records “reflecting” a broad topic such as this do not describe the records sought with reasonable particularity. Please provide clarification on the types of records you seek and the departments that may have them. On February 26, 2026, the City released a record responsive to Item 5 of Mr. McCarter’s request and stated: Parts 1-4 of your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as it is overly broad and vague. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In your request, you seek “documents [and] records reflecting” agreements or understandings between the City of Boston and entities participating in Boston Family Days. Requests that call for all records “reflecting” a broad topic such as this do not describe the records sought with reasonable particularity. Furthermore, there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024). For example, here, you seek “all emails, attachments, and correspondence discussing” various topics without email senders, recipients, and a date range. As such, a government employee has no way of reasonably identifying the records you seek without conducting an unreasonable amount of research. Finally, if the City was able to determine the records requested with reasonable particularity, it is likely based on your current request that it would be necessary to charge a fee estimate given the large volume of potential records. Any and all documents and information that is requested may involve a significant volume of records, including records containing information that must be redacted before the records can be released Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McCarter contends: This request … identifies: [1] A defined counterparty: Boston Family Days / Boston Family Museum. [2] A defined timeframe: January 1, 2023 to present. [3] Defined categories of records: draft agreements, memoranda of understanding, correspondence regarding contractual terms, and internal approval or authorization records. These are conventional contract-related record categories tied to a specific entity

Grace Jung SPR26/0702 Page 4 March 11, 2026 and timeframe. They do not call upon administrative personnel to make abstract or policy-level judgments. Rather, they ask for identifiable records relating to agreements with a named organization. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public

Grace Jung SPR26/0702 Page 5 March 11, 2026 Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Items 1, 2, and 3 With regard to Items 1-3, Mr. McCarter has provided descriptions of the categories of records he is seeking, including, among other things, specific classes of records and an identified time frame. While his request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, he has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking. Consequently, to the extent that responsive records exist, I find the City must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Items 4 and 5 With regard to Items 4 and 5, based on Mr. McCarter’s original written request and subsequent emails, I find it is unclear what specific records he is seeking. Accordingly, if Mr. McCarter seeks specific records, he may wish to clarify his written request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). This office encourages Mr. McCarter and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. McCarter may wish to narrow his request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. McCarter 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. McCarter may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Grace Jung SPR26/0702 Page 6 March 11, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McCarter