Joseph W. Ford v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20253097)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 29, 2025 SPR25/3097 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Counsel and Records Access Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 110 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Walleigh: On October 22, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Office), seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or 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, Joseph Ford. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 7, 2025, Mr. Ford requested: [1] All contracts, grant agreements, and sub-recipient awards between EOHLC (or DHCD) and Metro Housing Boston for administration of RAFT or other rental assistance programs since January 1, 2023[;] [2] Any correspondence, emails, or memoranda between EOHLC officials and Metro Housing Boston concerning fraud flags, application denials, or audit findings related to RAFT[;] [3] All written complaints, investigations, or findings related to mismanagement, misuse of funds, discrimination, or retaliation involving Metro Housing Boston or its employees[;] [4] Any communication with Krokidas & Bluestein LLP regarding representation of Metro Housing Boston, including engagement letters and billing records paid from state or federal funds[;] [5] Any internal policies or memoranda setting forth Metro Housing’s obligations 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. SPR25/3097 Page 2 October 29, 2025 to respond to public information requests or to applicants alleging discrimination or retaliation. 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). 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 understanding 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.

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR25/3097 Page 3 October 29, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction under the attorney- client privilege, the Office argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law: 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. In light of the Office’s 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 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 Office may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. 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 segregation or redaction. This office encourages Mr. Ford and the Office to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Ford 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: Joseph Ford