Maryna Pashchenko v. Boston Housing Authority (SPR 20253454)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 8, 2025 SPR25/3454 Dean Papademetriou, Esq. General Counsel Public Records Manager Boston Housing Authority 52 Chauncey Street Boston, MA 02111 Dear Attorney Papademetriou: I have received the petition of Maryna Pashchenko appealing the response of the Boston 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 November 10, 2025, Ms. Pashchenko requested the following records: [1] Copies of all inspection reports, photographs, and notes for the inspections conducted at [an identified] apartment on July 30, September 3, and October 7, 2025; [2] Any internal communications between BHA staff and [an identified] landlord . . . related to these inspections; [3] A copy of the documentation [an identified individual] personally handed to [an identified] Inspector . . . on July 30, 2025 . . .; [4] Any records explaining why the October 7 inspection was removed, is no longer visible, or was never added to the BHA database; [5] Written clarification regarding the inspection reportedly scheduled for December 10, 2025 . . .; [6] . . . [I]dentification of who approved [an identified] apartment for lease under the Section 8 program . . . with: [eight identified substandard housing conditions]. The Authority provided a response on November 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Ms. Pashchenko petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3454, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Authority provided a supplemental response in an email dated December 1, 2025. Ms. Pashchenko further appealed the Authority’s supplemental response in an email to this office on the same date. 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

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3454 Page 2 December 8, 2025 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). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. 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. 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Pashchenko’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Authority’s November 21st and December 1st Responses In its November 21, 2025 response, the Authority stated, “[p]lease note your request does not constitute a public records request as written. However, you may be entitled to this information as a non-public record.” The Authority further indicated that it, “forwarded [the] request to the BHA Leased Housing Department.” In its supplemental December 1, 2025 response, counsel for the Authority advised, “[o]n November 21, 2025. . . the BHA responded that the records requested were not public records” and additionally reiterated that the Authority, “forwarded [the] request to the BHA Leased Housing Department.” Further, counsel for the Authority stated that Ms. Pashchenko “has an independent right to these records under a different law” and noted that, as such, “the BHA disclosed to the Requester all the records that were requested and that are in its possession as non-public records.”

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3454 Page 3 December 8, 2025 In a telephone conversation between a staff member of the Public Records Division and a representative of the Authority on December 8, 2025, the Authority identified additional records responsive to Item 3 of Ms. Pashchenko request and noted its intent to provide them to her. The Authority further noted that, outside of the additional records responsive to Item 3 that it subsequently identified, all responsive records were previously provided to Ms. Pashchenko through a special right of access. Current Appeal In her November 21, 2025 appeal, Ms. Pashchenko characterized the Authority’s response as out of compliance with the Public Records Law, and states that the Authority, “has now produced fabricated, altered, incomplete, and misleading documents[.]” Additionally, in her further appeal of the Authority’s December 1, 2025 supplemental response, Ms. Pashchenko claims, “[the Authority] acknowledges WHAT I requested, but failed to produce any of the essential materials.” Upon review of the file, it is my understanding that Ms. Pashchenko submitted multiple pages of records with her appeal petition, including inspection reports dated July 31, 2025 and October 7, 2025, as well as correspondence from the Authority to “[an identified] landlord . . . related to these inspections[.]” The file additionally contains a November 20, 2025 email from an Authority representative in which they confirm, “[t]he December inspection for [an identified unit] is scheduled for December 3rd. . .” and provide, “a document confirming that the City of [an identified municipality] defines . . . [an identified address] as a legal unit.” Further, in an email to this office on December 3, 2025, Ms. Pashchenko writes, “[t]he inspection [report] from September 3 had been sent to me earlier[.]” Issues Outside the Authority of this Office Please be advised that the Office of the Supervisor of Records is statutorily empowered with the authority to determine the public record status of government records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10. Further, in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been alleged. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Please note that claims of a government entity’s production of “fabricated, altered, . . . and misleading documents[,]” as alleged in Mr. Pashchenko’s appeal petition, are outside the jurisdiction of this office. Given that such issues do not fall within the authority of this office, I am unable to address such issues in this determination. Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide a response to Item 3 of Ms. Pashchenko’s request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3454 Page 4 December 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maryna Pashchenko