Emmanuel, Gideon v. Boston, City of (SPR 20261162)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 10, 2026 SPR26/1162 Grace Jung Records Access Officer City of Boston 1 City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Gideon Emmanuel 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 November 10, 2025, Mr. Emmanuel requested: . . . a copy of my work product from the time of my employment at the city. To accomplish this I would need every google document, spreadsheet, powerpoint, and PDF in my former personal drive and in the permitting transformation initiative shared drive (except for the permitting tech team ‘archive’ subfolder in the PTI shared drive). I would also like to see the state contract/IQC’s and accepted proposals for three contracts: [1] Permitting service mapping/user experience research. State contract put out from DOIT in Winter 2025, Nava won this. [2] Strategic planning for the worker empowerment cabinet. IQC put out from OWD in Spring 2024, Strategy Matters won this. [3] BPS athletics strategic plan. IQC put out from the Mayor’s office near the end of 2023, Field States won this. On March 9, 2026, Mr. Emmanuel narrowed his request as follows: I would be happy to proceed in either of the following ways: If possible, can you please provide a listing or export of file metadata for documents within my City of Boston Google Drive and the Permitting Transformation Initiative shared drive during my employment. A listing containing fields such as file name, owner, 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 SPR26/1162 Page 2 April 10, 2026 created date, last modified date, and folder location would allow me to identify the specific records I am seeking.ORAlternatively, [sic] the request could be limited to documents where I am listed as the creator or owner within the City’s Google Workspace during my period of employment. (And to limit it even more, I would be happy to review a listing of all of these documents and specify which ones I really need to reduce the review and redaction time)[.] Either approach should substantially reduce the volume of records requiring review and allow me to identify the specific work product I am seeking. The City responded on November 25, 2025 and March 9, 2026, and assigned reference number R006084-111025 to this request. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Emmanuel petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1162, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Emmanuel contends, “. . . this appeal concerns the City’s recent denial and its failure to engage with a reasonable, narrowed request, rather than the initial submission in November 2025. I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Records order the City to respond to the narrowed request and produce responsive records . . . .” The City’s November 25th and March 9th Responses On November 25, 2025, the City stated, “[d]ue to this ongoing search and subsequent records review, additional time is needed. As such, the City will need up to fifteen (15) additional business days to respond to your request.”

Grace Jung SPR26/1162 Page 3 April 10, 2026 On March 9, 2026, the City responded: Here, you seek “every google document, spreadsheet, powerpoint, and PDF” within your City of Boston Google Drive. A request for all contents of a “personal drive” would require the City to locate, review, and segregate an overly burdensome amount of files for responsiveness. Specific identifiable records, along with a date range to effectively narrow the documents yielded, would be needed for a proper and thorough search. Since this information is not provided, a government employee has no way of reasonably identifying the records you seek without conducting an unreasonable amount of research. As such, your request does not comply with the Massachusetts public records law and its access regulations, as there is an expectation that a requester will be reasonable in requests for public records. . . . Responsive records for the other parts of your request will be made available on a rolling basis. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the 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 for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 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. Emmanuel submitted his narrowed request on March 9, 2026, it is unclear why the City has not provided the responsive records. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5); see also 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.

Grace Jung SPR26/1162 Page 4 April 10, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Emmanuel 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. Emmanuel 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: Gideon Emmanuel