Johnson, Paul v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20261059)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1059 Grace Jung Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Paul R. Johnson, Esq., of Pioneer New England Legal Foundation, 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 23, 2026, Attorney Johnson sought the following for January 1, 2024 to the present: [1] All project labor agreements entered into by the City of Boston relating to the Boston Public Schools Long Term Facilities Plan, including, without limitation, any project labor agreements entered into by the City of Boston with the Greater Boston Trades Union or the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters[;] [2] All project labor agreements entered into by the City of Boston relating to any school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston[;] [3] All analyses, reports, studies, estimates, or other documents which relate to the impact of project labor agreements on the projected or actual costs of school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston[;] [4] All analyses, reports, studies, estimates, or other documents which relate to the impact of project labor agreements on the projected or actual duration of school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston[;] [5] All analyses, reports, studies, estimates, or other documents which relate to the impact of project labor agreements on the potential for labor unrest on school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston[;] [6] All analyses, reports, studies, estimates, or other documents which relate to the impact of project labor agreements on the bidding process for school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston, including, without limitation, a determination that a successful competitive bidding process could not be achieved without a project labor agreement[;] 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 SPR26/1059 Page 2 April 2, 2026 [7] All analyses, reports, studies, estimates, or other documents which relate to a determination by the City of Boston that entering into project labor agreements for school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston was or is in the best interests of the City of Boston[;] [8] Any and all records of the City of Boston consisting of minutes of public meetings wherein a subject of such meetings included consideration of a project labor agreement for school construction or renovation projects undertaken by the City of Boston. The City responded on January 28, 2026, February 23, 2026, March 2, 2026, March 11, 2026, and March 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Attorney Johnson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1059, 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. 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 Responses In its January 28, 2026 response, the City acknowledged receipt of the request assigning it reference number R000442-012826. In its February 23, 2026 response, the City stated, “…the relevant department has been contacted and is working to collect the records responsive to your request.” In its March 2, 2026 response, the City stated, “[w]e are currently working with the relevant department that may have responsive records for your request…”

Grace Jung SPR26/1059 Page 3 April 2, 2026 In its March 11, 2026 response, the City stated, “…In reviewing your request, we determined that your request is currently overly broad and vague. Specifically, you requested documents ‘relating’, ‘which relate to’, and ‘any and all’ project labor agreements ‘relating’ to Boston Public School Long Term Facilities Plan. In order for the City to fulfill your request, we ask that you narrow the scope of what you are seeking by 03/26/2026…Requestors typically narrow their request by identifying a more specific date range or a more specific type of record…” In a March 16, 2026 email to the City, Attorney Johnson stated, “… [o]ur original request asked for records from January 1, 2024, to the present. We feel that is a suitably narrow time frame for the request, so we renew our request for records within that time period. We also disagree with your view that our request is over-broad because it asks for documents relating to and any and all project labor agreements relating to Boston Public Schools Long Term Facilities Plan. This is fairly standard language for public records requests and similar requests for production, so we stand by this language…” In its March 20, 2026 response, the City stated, “[w]e are maintaining our response and are also actively trying to locate record for your request. We have contacted the relevant department who may hold responsive records for Part 1 & 2 of your request.” Current Appeal In his March 23, 2026 petition to this office, Attorney Johnson argued the following: Our request relates to an important public policy issue: Did the City of Boston comply with its statutory obligation to conduct a detailed analysis of whether the use of project labor agreements is in the best interest of the City? The City has refused to produce any records that would allow us to evaluate this important question. Moreover, it is not sufficient for the City to produce just the project labor agreements themselves. In order to determine whether the City complied with its statutory obligations, we also need to see all of the studies, reports and analyses generated by the City to support its conclusion that the use of project labor agreements on school construction projects was in the best interests of the City of Boston. We have been patient with the City’s delay in responding to our request. We conferred in good faith with a representative of the City in an effort to determine whether an agreement could be reached to resolve this dispute, but the City was unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions on the issue. The City could have produced some documents, and declined to produce other documents, and the parties could have negotiated towards a resolution from there. The City was not even willing to do that. Instead, the City has failed to produce even a single document in response to a meritorious and reasonable public records request that was submitted nearly two months ago.

Grace Jung SPR26/1059 Page 4 April 2, 2026 Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). The Superior Court found that under the Public 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. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “all project labor agreements. . . .relating to” and “all analyses, reports, studies, estimates, or other documents which relate to” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public records sought. See Chawla, at 2. Attorney Johnson may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Attorney Johnson has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Attorney Johnson and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency 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 to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Johnson 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).

Grace Jung SPR26/1059 Page 5 April 2, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul R. Johnson, Esq.