Maryna Pashchenko v. Boston Housing Authority (SPR 20253772)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3772 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]. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3454 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 8, 2025). In my December 8th determination, I ordered the Authority to provide Ms. Pashchenko with a response to Item 3 of her request. Subsequently, the Authority responded on December 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Ms. Pashchenko petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3772, was opened as a result. While 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. SPR25/3772 Page 2 January 8, 2026 this appeal was pending, the Authority provided a supplemental response in an email to Ms. Pashchenko and this office on December 30, 2025. Ms. Pashchenko further appealed the Authority’s supplemental response in an email to this office dated December 31, 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. Current Appeal In her December 23, 2025 appeal to this office, Ms. Pashchenko “documents serious deficiencies in BHA’s response, specifically: [1] A false factual assertion regarding the identity of the inspector; and [2] The distortion and omission of evidentiary materials in the records produced.” In regard to point one, above, Ms. Pashchenko contends “If [an identified] Inspector . . . had not been the inspector who conducted the inspection . . . I would not possess his direct contact information, nor would his voicemail identify him as such.” She further states that, for this reason, “BHA’s explanation [why] the record could not be located . . . is therefore not credible.” Regarding point two, Ms. Pashchenko states, “[t]he photographs produced by BHA are black-and-white copies, despite the fact that I provided color photographs. . . .” She also states, “[c]ritical photographs are missing entirely, including images documenting: rotted wood beneath the kitchen sink; and visible mold.” In her further appeal of the Authority’s supplemental December 30, 2025 response, Ms. Pashchenko argues, “BHA’s claim of compliance is false.” With respect to the Authority’s responses to Item 3 of her request, she states, “BHA has again produced only my own materials — documents that I personally created and handed to a BHA inspector on July 30, 2025. . . .” Ms. Pashchenko additionally claims that the Authority’s “own [December 22nd and December

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3772 Page 3 January 8, 2026 30th responses] [admit] that the only documents produced are those [‘]provided by the Requester to the BHA’s housing inspector.[’] This admission confirms that no responsive agency records were produced at all.” 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 December 22nd and December 30th Responses In its previous December 1, 2025 response, 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.” In a previous telephone conversation between a Public Records Division staff member and a representative of the Authority on December 8, 2025, the Authority identified additional records responsive to Item 3 of Ms. Pashchenko’s request and noted its intent to provide them to her. The Authority also indicated that outside of the additional records responsive to Item 3 that it identified, all responsive records were previously provided to Ms. Pashchenko through a special right of access. In its December 22, 2025 response, the Authority provided a 48-page document responsive to Item 3 of Ms. Pashchenko’s request and advised, “[i]n accordance with the Supervisor’s determination [in SPR25/3454], . . . [a]fter a [continued] search for the record responsive to . . . Item #3, please find attached the document that was presented to the inspector on July 30, 2025. The Authority additionally noted that it “previously had difficulty finding this record for the following reason: while [the] request states that the document was handed to [an identified] Inspector . . . , the inspector . . . on July 30, 2025 was actually [a different identified] Inspector[.]” In its supplemental December 30, 2025 response, the Authority provided a copy of the 48-page document responsive to Item 3 of the request, as noted above, and confirmed that this copy was produced using, “a color scanner” versus the “black and white scanner” the Authority previously used to produce the black and white copy of the same responsive record it provided to Ms. Pashchenko on December 22, 2025. The Authority further provided the following information: On December 22, 2025, the BHA provided additional records related to Item #3. .

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3772 Page 4 January 8, 2026 . . The records consisted of the documents provided by the Requester to the BHA’s housing inspector. The BHA’s email to the Requester explained why the BHA could not find the records previously. . . . In her appeal of this response, the Requester alleges that there were “serious deficiencies BHA’s response, specifically: . . . 1. A false factual assertion regarding the identity of the inspector; and 2. The distortion and omission of evidentiary materials in the records produced.” The Authority went on to address points one and two, above, in its supplemental December 30th response: 1. The BHA did not make a false factual assertion regarding the identity of the inspector. There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the identity of the inspector who inspected the . . . unit. [An identified] Inspector . . . was unable to conduct the inspection, and instead [a different identified] Inspector . . . conducted the inspection. This was the inspector who received the documents from the Requester. In any event, the identity of the inspector is irrelevant to whether the BHA provided the requested records. The BHA did provide the records as requested. 2. The records requested were not distorted or omitted. The Requester objects to the fact that the records that were provided are black and white rather than color. The records that were provided were scanned on a black and white scanner because the Requester did not specify that she wanted them in color. Accordingly, we rescanned the records on a color scanner. To the best of our knowledge, there are no documents missing. Upon review, the Authority provided a response, including “all the records that were requested and that are in its possession” on December 1, 2025. The Authority subsequently provided a black and white copy of an additional record responsive to Item 3 of the request that it “previously had difficulty finding” on December 22, 2025, and provided an additional copy of this record “rescanned . . . on a color scanner” in its supplemental December 30, 2025 response. As such, I find the portion of Ms. Pashchenko’s appeal in which she claims, “no responsive agency records were produced at all” is unclear. Ms. Pashchenko 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). Further, in its December 30th response, the Authority confirmed it provided an additional copy of the record responsive to Item 3 of the request that was, “rescanned . . . on a color scanner[.]” Accordingly, I find that the portion of Ms. Pashchenko’s appeal in which she objects to the Authority’s previous production of a black and white copy of the same record is resolved.

Dean Papademetriou, Esq. SPR25/3772 Page 5 January 8, 2026 However, based on Ms. Pashchenko’s claim above, it is unclear whether the Authority possesses additional records responsive to Item 3 of her request. Specifically, it is unclear if the Authority possesses additional records responsive to “[c]ritical photographs . . . including images documenting: rotted wood beneath the kitchen sink; and visible mold.” If the Authority does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). 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). The Authority must clarify this matter. 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maryna Pashchenko