Camacho, Christina v. Ipswich Housing Authority (SPR 20260180)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 2, 2026 SPR26/0180 James Holt Executive Director Ipswich Housing Authority One Agawam Village Ipswich, MA 01938 Dear Mr. Holt: I have received the petition of Christina Camacho appealing the response of the Ipswich 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 11, 2025, Ms. Camacho requested “complete copies of all materials being submitted to HUD for review,” regarding “the HUD ‘Partial Release’ and correction of loan documents.” Specifically, Ms. Camacho sought: [A] Corrected land descriptions, parcel maps, surveys, and site plans identifying affected areas. [B] The Partial Release request, HUD forms, cover letters, transmittal sheets, and every exhibit or attachment referenced. [C] Title, deed, ground lease, mortgage/regulatory agreement documents and any amendments connected to this correction. [D] Correspondence among IHA, Harborlight/Agawam Village LLC, Lument Real Estate Capital, HUD, DHCD, the Town of Ipswich, surveyors, and counsel. [E] Any third-party reports relied upon (survey, appraisal, environmental, or engineering) and any resulting approvals. [F] Tenant-impact statements, internal assessments, or memos asserting “no tenant impact,” along with all public notice materials and proof of distribution. [G] A timeline of submissions and approvals, identifying what was sent to HUD and when. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3457 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 5, 2025). In my December 5th determination, I ordered the Authority to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of 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

James Holt SPR26/0180 Page 2 February 2, 2026 $150.00, to provide records responsive to Item D of the request, is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Additionally, I ordered the Authority to clarify whether it possess any additional records responsive to Items A, B, C, E, F, or G of the request. The Authority responded on December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Ms. Camacho petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0180, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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).

James Holt SPR26/0180 Page 3 February 2, 2026 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). The Authority’s December 17th Response In its December 17, 2025 response, the Authority clarified that it has “provided [Ms. Camacho] with all responsive records that it has,” with regard to Items A, B, C, E, F, and G of the request. The Authority also provided further explanation of its $150.00 fee estimate to provide records responsive to Item D. In support of its fee estimate, the Authority provided the following information: The Authority reiterates its previous position that this portion of your request does not meet the specificity requirements of the Public Records Law… Nonetheless, the Authority provided a good faith estimate for the necessary employee time to search for responsive records, presuming that the subject matter of the request was communications regarding Agawam Village HUD Partial Release request… The Authority is allowed to charge for employee search time necessary to respond to your request, together with any redactions required by law. That time is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling and reproducing responsive records…. Such hourly rate shall not exceed $25/hour unless otherwise authorized by the Supervisor of Records. Please note that because the Town of Ipswich has less than 20,000 residents, pursuant to the last Decennial U.S. Census (approximately 13,785), you will be charged for all hours of work associated with this request. It is estimated that it will cost $150.00 to comply with your Request. That amount is broken down as follows: Title Hours Per Hour Cost Executive Director 4 hours to search and Reduced to $25.00, scan responsive as required. emails correspondence. Authority’s Outside 2 hours to review Reduced to $25.00, Attorney(s) responsive records as required. for attorney-client privileged materials. TOTAL 6 hours $150.00 …The bulk of responsive correspondence is expected to reside in electronic format (i.e., e-mail communications). Precisely because this request does not identify by name or e-mail address any individuals for whom you are seeking

James Holt SPR26/0180 Page 4 February 2, 2026 communications, the Authority will need to take several steps to search for responsive records. First, it would need to compile a list of persons reasonably anticipated to have sent/received e-mails relative to the Agawam Village HUD Partial Release request. Second, it would have to identify domains for each of the entities listed in your request. Third, it would need to run searches for these persons and domains. Fourth, it would need to manually review all resulting records, for responsiveness. Searching the Authority’s e-mail database for senders or receivers from entities such as “DHCD” (now the Executive Office for Housing and Livable Communities or “EOHLC”) will likely result in thousands of e-mails. Moreover, there is no guarantee that searching only by keyword such as “Agawam Village” or “HUD” would be sufficiently limiting. For instance, where “Agawam Village” is one of the Authority’s housing locations, and in fact where the Authority’s administrative offices are located, using that search phrase would likely produce results of virtually every e-mail in the Authority’s database, if for no other reason than it is in the e-mail signature block of relevant Authority personnel. Authority staff does not have the ability to perform e-mail searches using multiple search terms simultaneously. Finally, because you specifically request correspondence with the Authority’s counsel, it is fairly expected that responsive records will include attorney-client privileged communications, for which the Authority is allowed to charge for redaction time. In light of all of this work, the original fee estimate of 6 hours is more than reasonable. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Camacho argued: The December 17, 2025 Supplemental Response does not acknowledge, evaluate, approve, or deny my public-interest fee-waiver request. It does not engage in any analysis of public benefit or hardship and proceeds as though payment were the only path forward. This omission constitutes a failure to comply with the Supervisor’s directive to consider a fee reduction or waiver. Additionally, the Supplemental Response does not cure the deficiencies identified in the Determination. It does not certify a reasonable search, does not identify custodians or systems searched, and does not clearly distinguish between records that do not exist and records that were not searched. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised that under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, 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).

James Holt SPR26/0180 Page 5 February 2, 2026 Given that the Authority has confirmed that it has withheld no additional records responsive to Items A, B, C, E, F, and G of the request, and this office has no authority to compel the Authority to create records, I find that this portion of Ms. Camacho’s appeal is resolved. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the Authority’s response, the Authority has sufficiently explained the amount of time it requires to locate, segregate, and redact the requested records as required by law, and has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 is equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks. Further, the Authority has also confirmed the Town of Ipswich has a population of less than 20,000 residents. Consequently, I find that the Authority has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). Please also be advised, segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege is interpreted to be “required by law.” This office encourages Ms. Camacho and the Authority to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Camacho may wish to narrow her request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Camacho is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

James Holt SPR26/0180 Page 6 February 2, 2026 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christina Camacho Michelle E. Randazzo, Esq. Carole A. Alves