Karen Anzalone v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20253840)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 6, 2026 SPR25/3840 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Counsel, Public Records Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Walleigh: On December 29, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Office) 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, I understand that the Office furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Karen Anzalone. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 17, 2025, Ms. Anzalone requested the following: For the date range June 1, 2021 through January 1, 2025: A copy of any correspondence via email, phone, instant message or other manner sent or received by [three named individuals] of EOHLC, sent or received by [a specified domain] that makes any reference or mention of [a list of search terms.] 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 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. SPR25/3840 Page 2 January 6, 2026 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 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. Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the Office argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): EOHLC conducted a search and identified approximately 242 documents responsive to this request. After a preliminary review of those records, EOHLC provides the Requestor with a good faith estimate of $51.25. The basis of this estimate is 2.05 hours of staff time (beyond four hours) to review and redact all documents in accordance with law, estimating approximately 40 documents per hour. This includes, but is not limited to, the following applicable exemptions and/or privilege: - Privacy Exemption (G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)) - The documents requested contain or may contain personal identifying information, such as non-public mailing

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR25/3840 Page 3 January 6, 2026 addresses, social security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the privacy exemption. - Attorney-Client Privilege - Some of the records that may be responsive to the request are communications between EOHLC staff and attorneys or amongst attorneys. These communications are subject to attorney-client privilege and are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law to the extent they consist of communications about legal matters between counsel and client, or between attorneys representing clients with a common interest. These communications were made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or providing confidential legal advice, did not include any person who was not an employee or attorney within EOHLC, and were not otherwise disclosed to a third party. Accordingly, the privilege has not been waived. 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 Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Ms. Anzalone is advised that she may appeal the Office’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Anzalone 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: Karen Anzalone