Council Unanimously Presses Wu Administration on Three Unanswered Records Requests

The Boston City Council voted 13-0 on Oct. 21 to demand that Mayor Michelle Wu's administration answer three formal information requests the council adopted three weeks earlier, and to provide a full accounting of every other request it has left unanswered, according to the council's records.

The order, Docket 2026-1969, was filed by Councilor Erin Murphy under Section 17F of the city charter, Chapter 452 of the Acts of 1948, which allows the council to request information from the mayor. The rules were suspended and the order passed with all 13 members voting yes: Breadon, Coletta Zapata, Culpepper, Durkan, FitzGerald, Flynn, Louijeune, Mejia, Murphy, Pepén, Santana, Weber and Worrell, according to the council's Legistar record.

The order asks the mayor to furnish, within one week of receiving it, "complete responses and all outstanding information, documents, and communications" requested under three 17F orders adopted on Sept. 30, 2026. "Nearly three weeks have passed since these orders were adopted, yet no responses have been provided to the filing Councilor, nor has there been any communication acknowledging the requests, explaining the delays, or indicating when the information will be produced," the order states.

The first outstanding order, Docket 1852, concerns a former Boston Public Schools senior environmental engineer identified in an Aug. 26, 2026, report by the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General. According to Murphy's filing, that order sought information on the engineer's residency compliance, remote work arrangements, contractor classification, payments through outside vendors, internal communications, authorization of expenditures and "accountability for the use of public funds." The 17F order does not name the engineer, and Boston Uncut has not independently reviewed the Inspector General's report for this story.

The second, Docket 1853, requests information on Boston Public Schools procurement practices, contracting and financial controls, payment authorization, and the district's implementation of the Inspector General's recommendations, along with related records and communications.

The third, Docket 1854, asks for information and communications about the planning, approval and implementation of roadway alterations at Tremont Street and Parker Street in Mission Hill. WBUR reported in September that a second crash at that intersection had prompted Murphy and neighbors to seek answers. "Of particular concern, the City has proceeded with making these roadway changes permanent without responding to the Council's formal request for the underlying records, explanations, and internal communications," the new order says. "Moving forward with a project does not eliminate the administration's obligation to account for its decisions or provide information already requested."

The order describes the three as part of "a broader pattern of delayed or incomplete responses to Section 17F requests," a concern it says was previously raised in Docket 1840 on Sept. 30. "Section 17F is not a courtesy request," the order says. "It is a critical oversight authority granted to the Boston City Council, and that authority is meaningless if formally adopted requests can be ignored without consequence."

Murphy's filing also addressed her colleagues. "Regardless of our differences on other matters, Councilors should stand together in demanding timely and complete responses from the administration and be prepared to exercise the enforcement powers available to us when those requests go unanswered," it says. The order does not specify what enforcement steps the council might take.

Beyond the three dockets, the order asks the mayor for "a complete accounting of all other outstanding Section 17F orders adopted by the City Council, including their docket numbers, dates of adoption, responsible departments, reasons for nonresponse, and anticipated dates of completion."

The vote came at the same meeting at which the council voted 8-2, with three members voting present, to summon MBTA General Manager Phillip Eng to a Nov. 6 hearing, and on the same day the mayor's office issued a statement saying it did not believe "subpoenas are a constructive way to engage with close partners in government," as NBC10 Boston reported. The 17F order is a separate tool; it is a request directed to the mayor rather than a summons.

The 17F order was one of several oversight measures on the council's Oct. 21 agenda. Councilors also referred to committee a hearing order on the central booking agreement between the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, a hearing order on the end of the SuccessLink youth jobs program, and a hearing order on cost-of-living adjustments for retirees in the Boston Retirement System, according to the council's Legistar records.

The order sets a deadline of one week from the mayor's receipt of it. As of Friday morning, the council's online file for Docket 1969 listed only the order itself and the Oct. 21 vote.