Three weeks, no answers: council presses Wu administration on unanswered 17F orders

The City Council has a formal tool for getting information from City Hall: an order under Section 17F of the city charter. Councilor Erin Murphy says three of hers have gone unanswered, and on Oct. 21 the whole council backed her demand for answers.

Murphy's new order (docket 1969) passed under a suspension of the rules. The council's record shows 13 yes votes. The clerk announced 12 at the meeting; City Councilor Ed Flynn asked later in the meeting to add his name and be recorded in favor (watch at 3:58:49).

Why it matters to residents: these requests ask how public money was spent at Boston Public Schools and how the city decided to change a Mission Hill intersection where a cyclist was killed in July. The order also asks for a full accounting of every 17F the council has passed that the administration has not answered.

What Murphy asked for, and when

On Sept. 30 the council passed three Murphy orders under the rules' suspension:

• Docket 1852: BPS residency rules, remote work, contractor classification and payments involving a former senior environmental engineer named in the state Inspector General's Aug. 26 report.
• Docket 1853: BPS procurement, contracting and payment controls, and whether BPS has carried out the Inspector General's recommendations.
• Docket 1854: records on the planning and approval of roadway changes at Tremont and Parker streets. That vote was 11 yes, with Louijeune and Mejia not present.

The Oct. 21 order says the mayor is asked to respond within a week, and that nearly three weeks passed with no response and no word on when one would come. It says the city went ahead with making the Tremont-Parker changes permanent without answering the council's request for the underlying records.

On the floor, Murphy said she had not received an answer or any communication about the status of the three orders (2:23:17). Council President Liz Breadon told her she appreciated her frustration with the slow responses (2:23:48).

A pattern Murphy has flagged before

The same day she filed the three orders, Murphy put a letter on the record (docket 1840) explaining why she had also filed state public records requests on the same subjects. In the letter, she cites an August 2025 Boston Globe editorial reporting figures from her office: councilors filed 422 requests for information over eight months, and fewer than half were answered. She wrote that in May she had asked the council to pause regular business until overdue requests were answered.

Her letter also pointed to a Human Services hearing on the Blackstone pool where no one from the administration appeared, a hearing we covered. Other councilors use 17F orders too: the same Sept. 30 meeting passed Councilor Miniard Culpepper's request on the status of the Boston Reparations Task Force's work (docket 1855).

The push comes the same week the council voted to summon MBTA General Manager Phillip Eng over Blue Hill Avenue (our coverage). In that dispute, a spokesperson for Mayor Michelle Wu said the administration does not see subpoenas as a constructive way to work with partners in government, WBUR reported. We found no public response from the administration to the 17F order itself.

The Tremont-Parker thread

The intersection behind docket 1854 is where Louisa Gag, a city transportation planner, was killed while biking in July, the Boston Globe reported. On Oct. 9 the city announced a parking-protected bike lane from Parker to Terrace Street and new markings, and said it would remove an unofficial lane that advocates had taped down in August, WBUR reported. Interim Streets Chief Chris Osgood called it a first phase, with repaving and a likely new crosswalk planned next year.

Murphy also filed a hearing order on unauthorized roadway changes at the intersection (docket 1797). When she introduced it Sept. 23, she said she had written to Osgood and the mayor and had not heard back (Sept. 23 meeting, 1:41:24). That order is still in the Planning, Development and Transportation Committee.

What's next

The new order asks for answers within a week of receipt, which would put the deadline around the end of October. Murphy's order also urges colleagues to be ready to use the council's enforcement powers if requests go unanswered, but it does not say which powers or when. Watch the council's next agendas and the meetings page for any response placed on file.