Laura Harrison v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20251813)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 27, 2025 SPR25/1813 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Primary Records Access Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 110 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Walleigh: On June 24, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Office/EOHLC) requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. 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 Office furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Laura Harrison. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 5, 2025, Ms. Harrison requested “[r]ecords of all communications with [an identified individual], Carlisle’s Town Planner from January 1, 2024 to June 5, 2025.” Subsequently, on June 13, 2025, Ms. Harrison revised her request to the following: “[a]re you able to see how many documents would be included if we only capture Jan 1st, 2025 to now (so roughly 6 months instead of 18)?” On June 16, 2025, Ms. Harrison further revised the request to exclude calendar invites. Petition to assess fees – Agencies A fee shall not assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) under a petition. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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). 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

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR25/1813 Page 2 June 27, 2025 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Office requests “... [a]pproval to assess a fee of up to $128.75 for costs associated with responding to a public records request from Laura Harrison . . . , received June 5, 2025, revised June 13th and June 16th.” The office provides the following in support of its request: [E]OHLC conducted a search and identified approximately 366 documents responsive to this request. [A]fter a preliminary review of those records, EOHLC provides the Requestor with a good faith estimate of $128.75. The basis of this estimate is 5.15 hours of staff time (beyond four hours) to review and redact all documents in accordance

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR25/1813 Page 3 June 27, 2025 with law, estimating approximately 40 documents per hour. This includes, but is not limited to, the following applicable exemptions and/or privilege: Privacy Exemption (G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)) – The documents requested contain or may contain personal identifying information, such as non-public mailing addresses, social security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the privacy exemption. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the Office has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Office to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Harrison 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: Laura Harrison