Adhiya, Sameer v. Arlington, Town of - Clerk's Office (SPR 20260009)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 9, 2026 SPR26/0009 Christine Bongiorno Deputy Town Manager – Operations Town of Arlington 730 Massachusetts Avenue Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Ms. Bongiorno: On January 2, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of Arlington (Town) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting 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 Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Sameer Adhiya. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In six separate requests on December 23, 2025, Mr. Adhiya sought the following: Request 1 . . . I am seeking records related to the wire fraud incident affecting the Arlington High School Building Project . . .: [1] Incident Documentation [a] Any incident reports, memoranda, or summaries prepared by the Town Manager’s Office, IT department, or outside consultants regarding the wire fraud[;] [b] Any digital forensics or cybersecurity investigation reports obtained by the Town in response to the incident[;] [c] Any reports or correspondence sent to or received from Arlington Police Department, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, or Massachusetts State Police regarding this incident[;] [2] Vendor & Payment Details [a] The name of the vendor associated with the Arlington High School Building Project whose payments were fraudulently diverted[;] [b] All contracts and invoices for that vendor for FY2023 and FY2024[;] 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

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 2 January 9, 2026 [c] Copies of the four wire transfer authorizations . . . associated with this incident . . .[;] [3] Recovery, Insurance, and Repayment [a] Documentation of funds recovered by the bank . . . and any correspondence with the bank concerning recovery efforts[;] [b] Insurance claim documents . . .[;] [c] High School Building Committee or Town body votes or authorizations to repay the affected vendor from project funds. . .[;] [4] Internal Controls & Policy Changes [a] Internal control policies in effect as of September 2023 governing wire transfers, vendor payment method changes, and dual authorization requirements[;] [b] Any updated or new policies adopted after discovery of the fraud. . .[;] [c] Any internal or external audit findings from FY2022–FY2024 that address weaknesses in cash disbursements, electronic payments, or IT security, and management’s written responses[;] [5] Additional Security Incidents [a] Documentation of any other attempted frauds or security incidents identified during the investigation period. . . [.] Timeframe: January 1, 2023 to present. Request 2 . . . [1] DPW Contracts and Purchase Orders[.] For Fiscal Years 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 (to date), please provide: [a] A list of all DPW contracts, purchase orders, or task orders greater than $25,000 . . .[;] [b] Copies (PDF) of the underlying contracts for each DPW contract greater than $100,000 during the same period[;] [2] No-Bid and Emergency Procurements [a] All written justifications and approvals for sole-source or non- competitive procurements by DPW (FY2022–FY2025)[;] [b] All written justifications and approvals for emergency procurements by DPW (FY2022–FY2025)[;] [3] Bidding Documents – Major Contracts[.] For any DPW contracts over $100,000 (FY2022–FY2025): [a] IFB or RFP documents issued[;] [b] Bid tabulation sheets or scoring summaries[;] [c] Award justification documents[;] [4] Policies and Delegations [a] Current written procurement policies and procedures applicable to DPW[;] [b] Any documents describing delegation of authority for contract approvals. . .[;]

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 3 January 9, 2026 [5] Vendor Aggregation [a] A summary or report showing total payments by vendor for DPW (FY2022–FY2025), listing: Vendor name[,] Total amount paid each fiscal year[,] [and] Number of contracts/POs. Request 3 . . . [1] Employment Records[.] For each of the following [three identified] officials . . . [p]lease provide: [a] Resume or curriculum vitae on file[;] [b] Employment application or appointment documents[;] [c] Job description[;] [d] Employment contract . . .[;] [e] Most recent three performance evaluations for each official . . .[;] [2] Financial Disclosures & Ethics [a] Any conflict of interest disclosure forms filed by these officials (2015– present)[;] [b] Any Statements of Financial Interest, if required under state law[;] [c] Records of annual ethics or conflict-of-interest training completion (2015–present)[;] [d] Any written recusals or disclosures relating to matters involving Skanska USA, HMFH Architects, or Consigli Construction[;] [3] Communications with Major High School Project Vendors[.] For [two identified individuals] . . . please provide: [a] Emails and written correspondence with executives or employees of: Skanska USA[,] HMFH Architects[,] [and] Consigli Construction. Timeframe: January 1, 2019 to present. . . . Request 4 I respectfully request . . . the following public records related to the Arlington High School Building Project: [1] Owner’s Project Manager (Skanska USA) Selection [a] Request for Proposals (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) documents issued for Owner’s Project Manager services (2015–2017)[;] [b] All proposals, qualifications statements, and cost submissions received from responding firms[;] [c] OPM Selection Committee: . . .[;] [d] Executed contract between the Town of Arlington and Skanska USA . . .[;] [2] Designer (HMFH Architects) Selection [a] RFQ documents issued pursuant to M.G.L. c. 7C (Designer Selection Law) (2016–2018)[;]

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 4 January 9, 2026 [b] All qualifications submissions received from responding architectural firms[;] [c] Designer Selection Committee:. . .[;] [d] Executed contract between the Town of Arlington and HMFH Architects . . .[;] [3] Construction Manager (Consigli Construction) Selection [a] RFP or RFQ documents issued for Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) services pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149A (2018–2019)[;] [b] Phase 1 – Prequalification . . .[;] [c] Phase 2 – Bidding: . . .[;] [d] Construction Manager Selection Committee: . . .[;] [e] Executed contract between the Town of Arlington and Consigli Construction . . .[;] [4] Change Orders [a] Complete change order log (2020–present) for the Arlington High School Building Project. . .[;] [b] All correspondence, emails, or memos related to any individual change order exceeding $50,000[;] [c] MSBA approval letters for any change orders requiring state review[;] [5] Conflicts of Interest & Ethics [a] All conflict of interest disclosure forms filed by members of the OPM, Designer, and CM selection committees[;] [b] Ethics policies applicable to Building Committee and selection committee members[;] [c] Any recusal documentation or conflict of interest determinations made during contractor selection processes[;] [d] All correspondence (emails and memos) between Town officials . . . and: Skanska USA executives or employees[,] HMFH Architects principals or employees[,] [and] Consigli Construction executives or employees [r]egarding the High School project, contractor selection, or Building Committee service. Timeframe . . . : January 1, 2015 to present. Request 5 I respectfully request copies of all campaign finance reports (Form M102 and any related filings[,] [including any amendments]) filed with your office by the following . . . [from January 1, 2025 to present]: [1] [Seven identified] School Committee members (current or recent) . . .[and] . . . [a]ny other School Committee candidates who have served or run for office . . .[;] [2] [Two identified] Select Board members (current or recent) . . . [and] . . . [a]ny other Select Board candidates who have served or run for office. . . .

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 5 January 9, 2026 Request 6 I am . . . requesting information regarding Arlington Education Foundation’s donors and financial relationships. . . . [1] A list of all corporate and organizational donors from January 1, 2015 to present . . .[;] [2] A list of all individual donors from January 1, 2015 to present . . .[;] [3] Specifically, for [Consigli Construction][,] [HMFH Architects][,] [and] [Skanska USA][,] and any of their principals or employees. . . [p]rovide donation dates and amounts[;] [4] Copies of any agreements, MOUs, grants, or contracts between Arlington Education Foundation and: Town of Arlington[,] Arlington Public Schools[,] [and] Arlington School Committee[;] [5] Confirmation of whether AEF receives any funding, in-kind support, or facility use from the Town or School District . . .[;] [6] Copies of IRS Form 990 tax returns for fiscal years 2015–2024. . . . In an email to Mr. Adhiya and this office on January 7, 2026, the Town provided clarification regarding the Public Records Law exemptions it sought to assess fees under in segregating and redacting the responsive records. Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 6 January 9, 2026 for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the Town “respectfully requests an extension of thirty (30) business days to respond to the Requests[,]” and additionally provides the following information: The broad nature of [the] Requests and the numerosity of said Requests will require a significant time commitment in order for the Town to respond in a compliant manner. . . . [The] Requests were submitted on December 23, 2025. . . . As a result of [Mr. Adhiya’s] failure to meet the deadline set in the Town’s December 29, 2025 letter . . . requesting a discussion about the scope of [the] Requests, the Town will be unable to meet its statutory deadline within the time provided by M.G.L. ch. 66, § 10(b)(vi). This is because the magnitude or difficulty of the Requests – of which there are six requests with over 155 subparts that spans over 10 years. Specifically, accessing this large number of records some that exist in hard copy will require significant time locating, scanning and redacting sensitive information if included. Additionally, email searches and procurement searches will likely yield thousands of results which will need to be scanned for redaction of sensitive information. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the Town to produce the records without an extension, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The Town is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 7 January 9, 2026 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality 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 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 2 (two) 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the Town requests it be permitted to charge $25 per hour under the attorney-client privilege, and additionally provided the following regarding its request to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): Exemption (f), the investigatory exemption under the Public Records Law. . . . This means that the Town is permitted to withhold materials that could compromise investigative efforts if disclosed. Further, exemption (f) permits a case-by-case consideration of whether disclosure of investigative materials or records could prejudice law enforcement. . . .

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 8 January 9, 2026 Exemption (c) under the Public Records Law. . . . By way of example, exemption (c) allows the Town to withhold employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee. . . . In its supplemental January 7, 2026 correspondence, the Town additionally provided the following regarding its request to assess fees for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): The Town is permitted to assess a fee for the time spent segregating and redacting requested records if required by law or approved by your Office through a fee petition. . . . Here, one of the Requests seeks “… records related to the wire fraud incident affecting the Arlington High School Building Project, publicly reported in June 2024, in which the Town lost approximately $445,945.73” and specifically requests, in part: “[a]ny incident reports, memoranda, or summaries prepared by the Town Manager’s Office, IT department, or outside consultants regarding the wire fraud…”, “[a]ny digital forensics or cybersecurity investigation reports obtained by the Town in response to the incident…” and “[a]ny reports or correspondence sent to or received from Arlington Police Department, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, or Massachusetts State Police regarding this incident.” . . . The Town is permitted to assess a fee because these records are, in part, likely to fall under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. . . . Since Exemption (f) warrants a case-by-case consideration of whether disclosure of records could prejudice effective law, a fee assessed for segregation and redaction is ostensibly permitted to comply with this request. . . . Next, another of the Requests seeks employment records for certain Town employees and/or officials. Specifically, the Requester seeks a range of records that likely fall under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. However, given that this exemption must be reviewed on a case-by case basis, it is likely that the Town would need to redact certain portions of records. . . . Therefore, a fee for segregation and redaction is proper and reasonable. Based on the information provided, I find the Town 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 Town has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above.

Christine Bongiorno SPR26/0009 Page 9 January 9, 2026 Further, I find the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Town to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Adhiya 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: Sameer Adhiya