J Steven Ward v. Arlington Housing Authority (SPR 20251725)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 17, 2025 SPR25/1725 Jack Nagle Executive Director Arlington Housing Authority 4 Winslow Street Arlington, MA 02474 Dear Mr. Nagle: On June 16, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Arlington Housing Authority (Authority/AHA) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the Authority furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, J Steven Ward. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 3, 2025, Mr. Ward requested: [1] [T]he training records of AHA personnel responsible for routine maintenance of the AC/heat pumps yearly and for the apartment turnovers that take place in Winslow Towers and Drake[;] [2] [A]ny record showing the cleaning and purification process conducted by AHA of the AC/heat pump to apartment 308 surrendered by me and subsequently rented to a new tenant. [3] [A]ny potential yearly maintenance record of ALL the AC/heat pump units installed in Winslow Towers and Drake including the purification process utilized. [4] [T]he name and address of that [identified] vendor. Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a 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

Jack Nagle SPR25/1725 Page 2 June 17, 2024 single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its June 16th petition, the Authority requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The AHA has experienced a similar situation as most public agencies regarding staff shortages and turnover and has found it necessary to fill recently vacant positions with newly hired staff within the last 60 days. Additionally, it appears that, we may need extensive time to identify, locate, segregate, and extract information in order to determine the extent of exemptions or redactions, as it appears some of the requested records may not exist at this time. Based on the Authority’s petition, I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records and the capacity of the Authority to produce the request without the extension, the Authority has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The Authority is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Jack Nagle SPR25/1725 Page 3 June 17, 2024 Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Jack Nagle SPR25/1725 Page 4 June 17, 2024 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Authority requests to charge for segregation and redaction of the responsive records. Subsequently, in an email to this office on June 17, 2025, the Authority clarifies that it requests to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (n) of the Public Records Law and provides the following in support of its request: Given that the requested records may include private information of residents residing in those units, we would like to request the ability to use Exemption C. “The Privacy Exemption.” …Exemption N. This is due to the potential safety and security risks for these heating and cooling systems that could result from providing certain specific information related to these systems including but not limited to “records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities...” The AHA would like to ensure it has the ability to redact and segregate information/documentation that could be used for purposes that pose a potential safety and security risk to the building and its residents and staff. In light of the Authority’s petition, I find the Authority has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Authority may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the Authority requests to charge a fee of $27.00 per hour, and states that “[t]he hourly rate of lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested is $27.00 per hour.” Based on the information provided in the Authority’s petition, I find the Authority has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Accordingly, permission to charge in excess of $25.00 per hour cannot be granted at this time. Conclusion As described above, I find the Authority has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information discussed above, the Authority may assess a fee for segregation and

Jack Nagle SPR25/1725 Page 5 June 17, 2024 redaction limited to $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). However, I find that the Authority has not met its burden to assess a fee in excess of $25 per hour. Please note, Mr. Ward has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: J Steven Ward