Richard Mills v. Springfield Housing Authority (SPR 20252723)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 25, 2025 SPR25/2723 Fidan Gousseynoff Executive Department Manager Springfield Housing Authority 60 Congress Street P. O. Box 1609 Springfield, MA 01104-1609 Dear Ms. Gousseynoff: I have received the petition of Richard Mills appealing the response of the Springfield Housing Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 27, 2025 and August 2, 2025, Mr. Mills requested approximately eighty six (86) categories of records from the Authority including documents related to the leaseholder and residency status of an identified unit, the incident and disciplinary action taken against an identified individual, the SHA tenant grievance panel and tenant union activity from 2019 to 2025 and the Tenancy Preservation Program regarding an identified individual’s tenancy. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2537 Determination of Supervisor of Records (September 3, 2025). In my September 3rd determination, I ordered the Authority to provide Mr. Mills with a response to his request. The Authority responded on September 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Mr. Mills petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2723, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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

Fidan Gousseynoff SPR25/2723 Page 2 September 25, 2025 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Authority’s September 11th Response In its September 11, 2025 response, the Authority stated, “[m]any of your requests are part of a deliberative process. Under those court matters and the rules of civil procedure, you (through your counsel) requested documents and asked interrogatories which were responded to by the Authority.” Current Appeal In his September 16, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Mills stated, “[i]nstead of providing documents, SHA has recently issued blanket objections citing ‘litigation,’ ‘deliberative process,’ and ‘investigatory’ privileges. These generalized objections fail to cite the specific exemption(s) under G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)…. SHA’s attempt to shield them under litigation privilege constitutes an unlawful denial and obstructs public oversight.” This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in the Western Division Housing Court. See Springfield Housing Authority v. Richard Mills, (Docket No. 25H79CV000012). Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on the matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Fidan Gousseynoff SPR25/2723 Page 3 September 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Mills