Riverbend park after August 8th

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, I hereby request the following records:

All documents (including emails, texts, and any other communications) concerning the scheduling of pedestrian and bicycle access to Riverbend Park in Cambridge sent on or after August 8th 2023, including, but not limited to, documents and communications concerning whether or not to close Memorial Drive/Riverbend Park to vehicular traffic on Saturdays.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as we believe this request is in the public interest, as suggested but not stipulated by the recommendations of the Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and is not made for commercial usage.

I expect the request to be filled in an accessible format, including for screen readers, which provide text-to-speech for persons unable to read print. Files that are not accessible to screen readers include, for example, .pdf image files as well as physical documents.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Ian Hunt-Isaak

Hi Mike,

Sorry for any confusion. No it is not. That appeal is for the Phase III reconstruction project https://www.muckrock.com/foi/massachusetts-1/dcr-memorial-drive-phase-iii-150110/

This is meant as a follow up to https://www.muckrock.com/foi/massachusetts-1/dcr-memorial-drive-phase-iii-150110/ where the documents in the response end on August 8th, the date that request was filed. This is relevant as there were news stories and hints of change that happened August 17th and later.

Thanks,
Ian

Hi Mike,

Any updates?

Thanks,
Ian

Hi Mike,

Thanks for uploading the documents. Just a quick heads up that there are some inconsistencies in the redactions. For example Councilor Simnons' cell phone number is redacted in DCR000165, but is present in DCR000177, 180 and 184.

As these documents are linked to muckrock these will be publicly accessible. Not sure if it's possible to update, but wanted to make sure you are aware.

- Ian

A second follow up. In the cover letter it states that some documents are being redacted per exemption d. For the files DCR000125_Redacted (1)_Redacted and DCR000137_Redacted almost the entire document in redacted, including the email address of the emails farther down the chain. I believe this does not comply with the secretary of state's guidelines on exemption d which states:

"Only portions of records that possess a deliberative or policymaking character and relate to an ongoing deliberative process are exempt from mandatory disclosure."

see https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/public-records/download/guide.pdf page 19

Which implies that while DCR can in good faith attempt to claim the exemption for the body text it cannot for the subject lines, and the recipients and senders of the emails in those documents. As well if there are emails from senders external to DCR/EEA I expect the body text of their email to be unredacted.

I'd like to avoid further appeals, to that end please send me copies of those documents with minimal redactions by 5pm today (Feb 14).

I'd also like to clarify the redactions to document DCR000021 (1)_Redacted. Am I correct that the entire body text of an email has been redacted according to exemption b, or is this a combination of exemption b and d? If the latter I'd ask that you ensure the redactions are as minimal as possible, covering exclusively the portions of the body text that is of deliberative nature.

Thank you,
Ian