Joe Thomas v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (SPR 20253745)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 24, 2025 SPR25/3745 Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. Associate General Counsel Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Chicojay Moore: On December 19, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Office/EEA) 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, Joe Thomas. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 5, 2025, Mr. Thomas requested: [1] [C]opies of all text messages (Text messages include all written electronic, non-email communications including e.g., SMS, iMessage, direct message via any medium (Facebook, Twitter, Skype) or other instant message, and any message sent or received via Signal, WhatsApp, or Telegram, whether person-to-person or as a “chat” or other group messages.), sent to, from or which copies (whether as cc: or bcc:) [an identified individual], which also includes [two identified individuals], and took place from June 1, 2025, through December 5, 2025, inclusive; [2] [E]lectronic mail correspondence dated from June 1, 2025 through December 5, 2025, inclusive, that was sent to, from or copies (whether as cc: or bcc:) [an identified individual], which include, anywhere, i.e., is also sent to, from or copying (again, whether as cc: or bcc:) or which otherwise include anywhere, e.g., in the body of a forwarded email, one or more of i) @analysisgroup.com, ii) @barrfoundation.org, iii) @acadiacenter.org, iv) @clf.org and/or v) @ucsusa.org[.] 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

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR25/3745 Page 2 December 24, 2025 Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting 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 agency 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; 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.

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR25/3745 Page 3 December 24, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, the Office requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law. In support of its petition, the Office provides the following information: … EEA conducted a search for responsive records based on this request and identified approximately 574 records. In addition to segregation and redaction being required by law, a portion of the records requested could potentially contain materials exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, including but not limited to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (d). For example, one or more of the persons or entities named in the request are conducting work under contract with EEA on matter involving the development of policy positions, which are not complete. The communications, including text messages, may also contain personal information exempt from disclosure under the “privacy” exemption, M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (c). EEA has an obligation to ensure that proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. This requires careful review and segregation of records before they are produced to a requestor. Segregation and redaction of messages often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single message. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or time of disclosure. The fee estimate provided is for the segregation and redaction process as a whole, and in the view of undersigned counsel, cannot be split up by 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. Conclusion As described above, 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 continue to communicate to enable the Office to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Thomas 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).

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR25/3745 Page 4 December 24, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joe Thomas