Christina Camacho v. Ipswich Housing Authority (SPR 20253457)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3457 James Holt Executive Director Ipswich Housing Authority One Agawam Village Ipswich, MA 01938 Dear Mr. Holt: I have received the petition of Christina Camacho appealing the response of the Ipswich 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 11, 2025, Ms. Camacho requested “complete copies of all materials being submitted to HUD for review,” regarding “the HUD ‘Partial Release’ and correction of loan documents.” Specifically, Ms. Camacho sought: [A] Corrected land descriptions, parcel maps, surveys, and site plans identifying affected areas. [B] The Partial Release request, HUD forms, cover letters, transmittal sheets, and every exhibit or attachment referenced. [C] Title, deed, ground lease, mortgage/regulatory agreement documents and any amendments connected to this correction. [D] Correspondence among IHA, Harborlight/Agawam Village LLC, Lument Real Estate Capital, HUD, DHCD, the Town of Ipswich, surveyors, and counsel. [E] Any third-party reports relied upon (survey, appraisal, environmental, or engineering) and any resulting approvals. [F] Tenant-impact statements, internal assessments, or memos asserting “no tenant impact,” along with all public notice materials and proof of distribution. [G] A timeline of submissions and approvals, identifying what was sent to HUD and when. The Authority responded on November 20, 2025, and provided a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Ms. Camacho petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3457, was opened as a result. 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

James Holt SPR25/3457 Page 2 December 5, 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. 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).

James Holt SPR25/3457 Page 3 December 5, 2025 The Authority’s November 20th Response In its November 20, 2025 response, the Authority provided records responsive to Items A, B, C, E, and F of the request. In addition, the Authority stated that “[t]here is no record responsive to [Item G].” Further, the Authority noted that Item D of the request did “not meet the specificity requirements of the Public Records Law,” however, it provided a fee estimate of $150.00 to produce responsive records, stating, “the Authority interprets request Letter D as seeking such communications only with respect to the Agawam Village HUD Partial Release.” In addition, the Authority noted that some of the responsive records may be redacted or withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. In support of its fee estimate, the Authority provided the following: The Authority is allowed to charge for employee search time necessary to respond to your request, together with any redactions required by law. That time is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling and reproducing responsive records…. Such hourly rate shall not exceed $25/hour unless otherwise authorized by the Supervisor of Records. Please note that because the Town of Ipswich has less than 20,000 residents, pursuant to the last Decennial U.S. Census (approximately 13,785), you will be charged for all hours of work associated with this request. It is estimated that it will cost $150.00 to comply with your Request. That amount is broken down as follows: Title Hours Per Hour Cost Executive Director 4 hours to search and Reduced to $25.00, scan responsive as required. emails correspondence. Authority’s Outside 2 hours to review Reduced to $25.00, Attorney(s) responsive records as required. for attorney-client privileged materials. TOTAL 6 hours $150.00 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Camacho argued that the Authority failed to produce all responsive records and requested a fee waiver.

James Holt SPR25/3457 Page 4 December 5, 2025 Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the Authority states that it would take 6 hours to produce and redact the records responsive to Item D of the request, it is unclear why the Authority requires this much time. In this case, the Authority states that it will take 4 hours to search and 2 hours to review the responsive documents, however, it is unclear how many pages of responsive records exist and how many minutes per page the Authority requires to segregate or redact the records as required by law. Please be advised, segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege is interpreted to be “required by law.” The Authority must also explain why 4 hours of search time is required to produce the responsive records and describe the task(s) involved in the search process. Accordingly, the Authority must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Authority must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $150.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Camacho and the Authority to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Camacho may wish to narrow her request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate.

James Holt SPR25/3457 Page 5 December 5, 2025 Additional Records Further, based on the information provided in the appeal petition and the Authority’s response, it is unclear if the Authority possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the Authority must clarify whether it possess any additional records responsive to Items A, B, C, E, F, or G of the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist the requestor in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The Authority must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Ms. Camacho with a response to the 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. Ms. Camacho may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christina Camacho