Deirdre Fernandes v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20253545)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3545 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 December 1, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Office) requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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, Deirdre Fernandes, of the Boston Globe. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 14, 2025, Ms. Fernandes requested the following records: [1] The number of families who have become non-compliant with HomeBASE since June 2024 because they couldn’t pay rent. Please provide the information by the shelter provider that was working with them when they signed their HomeBASE lease[;] [2] The number of families who have exited HomeBASE since June 2024 and are ineligible to return to emergency shelter, by the reason for their ineligibility[;] [3] How many HomeBASE leases did the state approve for monthly rent of $3,000 more? $4,000 or more? $5,000 or more?[;] [4] How many families signed waivers on broker fees between June 2024 to present?[;] [5] How many families have used up their $30,000 HomeBASE stipend within three months? Within six months? Within one year? Within 2 years?[;] [6] Monthly total caseload for HomeBASE since January 2023[;] 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. SPR25/3545 Page 2 December 5, 2025 [7] Monthly average spending on the HomeBASE program since January 2023[;] [8] SRI monthly invoices and supporting documents submitted by providers from June 2024 to present. 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 determination 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

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR25/3545 Page 3 December 5, 2025 search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, aside from requesting permission to assess fees for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the Office requests permission to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c). The Office provides the following in support of its request: [E]OHLC conducted a search and identified approximately 684 documents responsive to this request. [P]rivacy 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. . . . Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. 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 redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate to enable the Office to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Fernandes 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: Deirdre Fernandes