Chetan Tiwari v. Boston Housing Authority (SPR 20253477)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3477 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 Chetan Tiwari, Esq., of Tiwari Law, 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 October 6, 2025, Attorney Tiwari requested the following records: [1] All communications and between the Boston Housing Authority (“BHA”) and Justice for Housing (“J4H”), [an identified individual], or [a second identified individual] from January 1, 2022 through present concerning: [a] Housing vouchers being used or sold improperly; [b] [a second identified individual]; [c] [an identified individual][;] [2] All documents pertaining to hearings where [an identified individual], [a second identified individual] or J4H were investigated, including but not limited to recordings of hearings or transcripts from January 1, 2022 through present[;] [3] All decisions regarding investigations into the improper use of housing vouchers by J4H, [an identified individual], or [a second identified individual] from January 1, 2022 through present. In correspondence dated October 22, 2025, the Authority stated that Items 2 and 3 of Attorney Tiwari’s request were not within the Authority’s possession, custody, or control. The Authority additionally provided a fee estimate of $525.00 for Item 1 of the request and further indicated that it would “need up to, but no more than, fifteen (15) additional business days to review and process” Item 1 of the request. 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. SPR25/3477 Page 2 December 9, 2025 In an email to the Authority dated October 24, 2025, Attorney Tiwari stated, “[t]o reduce the amount of time necessary and the number of documents requested I am willing to narrow requests 2 and 3” and accordingly narrowed the timeframe of Items 2 and 3 of his request to “January 1, 2022 until December 31, 2024.” On October 28, 2025, the Authority provided an revised fee estimate for Item 1 of the request “[in] response to [Attorney Tiwari’s] amended requested time-frame[.]” In its revised fee estimate, the Authority identified 4,025 emails responsive to Item 1 of the request and further indicated, “the revised estimated time to process [Item 1 of the] request is approximately 14 hours[,]” resulting in a total fee estimate of $300.00. In an email replying to the Authority dated October 28, 2025, Attorney Tiwari contended that the revised estimate for the Authority’s production of records responsive to Item 1 of the request “should be $250.” He additionally advised, “[p]lease let me know if that is correct. If so, I can send a check tomorrow.” In an email replying to Attorney Tiwari on the same date, the Authority confirmed that it would not assess fees for the first two hours of work. In an email to the Authority on October 29, 2025, Attorney Tiwari clarified the timeframe of Item 1 of his request and stated, “I apologize, some recent information has come to light. . . . I will need the emails up to present.” Following the Authority’s request that Attorney Tiwari confirm that he “would like to revise [Item 1 of his] request[,]” Attorney Tiwari indicated in an email to the Authority on October 29, 2025 that he sought records responsive to Item 1 “from [January 1, 2022] until present.” Following further correspondence from Attorney Tiwari, the Authority provided a response on November 21, 2025, which included a revised fee estimate of $525.00 for the cost of producing records responsive to the clarified October 29, 2025 request as it pertains to Item 1. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Attorney Tiwari petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3447, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Authority provided additional information in an email to Attorney Tiwari and this office on December 2, 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.

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3477 Page 3 December 9, 2025 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 (two) 2 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). Status of the Requestor 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, neither Attorney Tiwari’s status, nor that of his client, will play any role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. The Authority’s November 21st and December 2nd Responses In its November 21, 2025 response to Attorney Tiwari’s clarified October 29, 2025 request regarding Item 1, the Authority provided a fee estimate of $525.00 and stated that a search for emails responsive to the clarified request “resulted in 6,628 emails[,]” and provided additional information regarding the fee. The Authority also advised that it, “[anticipated] that completing the review will require an additional 15 business days.”

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3477 Page 4 December 9, 2025 In its December 2, 2025 response to Attorney Tiwari and this office, the Authority stated that it has “continued diligently to compile the requested records since issuing its initial . . . fee estimate” and noted its efforts to “cooperate with the Requester as much as possible” by “previously [discussing] . . . a possible way to reduce the number of emails by shortening the timeframe[.]” The Authority further explained that when it issued its November 21, 2025 fee estimate, it “was still compiling emails and so [the Authority] . . . [sought] an additional 15 business days to respond.” Current Appeal In his November 24, 2025 appeal petition, Attorney Tiwari “seeks an order requiring BHA to provide a response by December 9, 2025” and notes that “[a]s of that date, [he] will have been waiting over two months for a response” to his initial October 6, 2025 request. Upon review of the appeal file, it is unclear whether Attorney Tiwari seeks to appeal the fees assessed by the Authority in its November 21, 2025 response. Specifically, a review of the appeal file indicates that upon this office’s receipt of Attorney Tiwari’s appeal petition, a Public Records Division staff member requested clarification regarding the basis of his appeal in an email on November 24, 2025. In their November 24th correspondence to Attorney Tiwari, the Public Records Division staff member asked “if [Attorney Tiwari had] paid the . . . fee estimate” and further requested that if “[he has] not paid the fee estimate,” to clarify if he “[seeks] to . . . appeal the fee estimate[.]” In an email replying to this office on the same date, Attorney Tiwari confirmed that, “[he has] not paid it, and [he is] not appealing it although it seems high.” However, in his petition, among other things, Attorney Tiwari “[requests] an Order requiring BHA” to “[p]rovide a reasonable estimate for costs to respond to the request.” Please be advised that 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 occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where the Authority provided a fee estimate in response to Attorney Tiwari’s clarified October 29th request on November 21, 2025, and it remains unclear whether Attorney Tiwari takes issue with the fee estimate but he states that he “seeks an order requiring BHA to provide a response by December 9, 2025[,]” I find that the basis of Attorney Tiwari’s appeal is unclear. Attorney Tiwari is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Under the Public Records Law, “[a] records access officer . . . shall at reasonable times and without unreasonable delay permit inspection or furnish a copy of any public record as defined in clause twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4, or any segregable portion of a public record, not later than 10 business days following the receipt of the request, provided that: . . . (iii) the records access officer receives payment of a reasonable fee as set forth in subsection (d).” G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(iii).

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3477 Page 5 December 9, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Attorney Tiwari may wish to clarify his specific objections to the Authority’s responses within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Chetan Tiwari, Esq.