Nadan-Buresh, Matthew v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20261053)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1053 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 Matthew Nadan-Buresh 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. Nadan-Buresh requested, “a copy of IAFF Local 718 – (Grievance #09-0663) v. City of Boston transcript testimony made by [an identified individual], and the Arbitrators award in Case# 01-24-0006-1003. IAFF local 718 v. City of Boston regarding [an identified individual’s] termination from the Boston Fire Department…” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3694 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 30, 2025). In my December 30th determination, I ordered the City to clarify how the record could be withheld in its entirety under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City responded on March 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Nadan-Buresh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1053 was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Nadan-Buresh status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive 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

Grace Jung SPR26/1053 Page 2 April 2, 2026 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. See 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 March 12th Response In its March 12, 2026 response, the City stated, “[t]he Public Records Department confirmed that one of the parties, the union, has objected to the publication of the requested arbitration decision. Therefore, the City has no records responsive to this request.” Current Appeal In his March 22, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Nadan-Buresh stated, “[t]he City previously acknowledged the existence of responsive records and withheld them under Exemption (c)…Instead of complying, the City has now taken a contradictory position, claiming that because a union objected to disclosure, ‘the City has no records responsive to this request.’ This is not a valid response under the Public Records Law…” Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511.

Grace Jung SPR26/1053 Page 3 April 2, 2026 Based on the City’s response, it is unclear what exemption under the Public Records Law the City is claiming to withhold the responsive records. It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold or redact a requested record. Consequently, I find the City must identify an exemption and explain with specificity how the exemption applies to withhold the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Nadan-Buresh with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Nadan-Buresh