Fitz, Shane v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20260373)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 11, 2026 SPR26/0373 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Counsel and Records Access Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Walleigh: On February 4, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Office/HLC) 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, Shane Fitzpatrick. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 21, 2026, Mr. Fitzpatrick requested the following: A. AHVP Participant Identification and Status Any records identifying me as an AHVP participant, including participant identifiers, eligibility determinations, voucher issuance, continuation, suspension, termination, transfer, portability, exception, or override records. B. Oversight, Monitoring, and Compliance Materials Any oversight, monitoring, compliance, audit, review, corrective action, findings, or reporting records generated or received by EOHLC concerning AHVP administration by Spencer Housing Authority, to the extent such records reference or are indexed to my voucher, tenancy, or participant status. C. Inter-Agency and External Communications All communications—including emails, attachments, memoranda, notes, messages, shared-platform comments, or correspondence—between EOHLC and Spencer Housing Authority, or between EOHLC and any other agency, contractor, or vendor, that reference me, my AHVP participation, my voucher, or my housing status. D. Funding and Payment Records 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. SPR26/0373 Page 2 February 11, 2026 Records reflecting AHVP funding approvals, subsidy authorizations, payment approvals, reimbursements, offsets, reconciliations, or financial controls associated with my voucher or tenancy, including records that reference participant identifiers rather than my name. E. Databases and Electronic Systems Any records retrievable from EOHLC databases, case-management systems, oversight tools, reporting platforms, spreadsheets, dashboards, or shared systems used to administer or oversee AHVP participants, to the extent such records reference me directly or indirectly. F. Public Records Request Logs Please also produce EOHLC’s public records request log(s), index, register, or tracking records maintained pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.04(2)(a) and 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5), as follows: (a) General PRR Logs Public records request log entries maintained by EOHLC for the period January 1, 2023 through January 21, 2026. (b) Requests Relating Specifically to Me (Including FIPA Requests) Public records request log entries, tracking records, or indices reflecting any public records requests, subject access requests, or requests for personal data made by or on behalf of me, whether processed under G.L. c. 66 and/or G.L. c. 66A, for the period February 1, 2022 through January 21, 2026. Such records shall include, to the extent maintained: Dates of receipt and response; Request type or classification (including PRR or FIPA); Internal tracking or reference numbers; Offices, custodians, or divisions assigned; Status, disposition, extensions, or denials; and Notations sufficient to document EOHLC’s handling and processing of such requests. This request is limited to administrative log entries and tracking information and does not seek the substantive records of other requesters beyond what is required to identify and contextualize EOHLC’s handling of requests relating to me. 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

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/0373 Page 3 February 11, 2026 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 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its February 4, 2026 petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under the attorney-client privilege, the Office argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): ... HLC conducted a search and identified approximately 1,472 documents responsive to this request. After a preliminary review of those records, HLC

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/0373 Page 4 February 11, 2026 provides the Requestor with a good faith estimate of $820. The basis of this estimate is 32.8 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 addresses, social security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the privacy exemption. . . . HLC 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 records often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single record. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or the time of disclosure. The fee estimates provided are for the search, segregation, and redaction process as a whole, and in the view of undersigned, cannot be split up by exemption. Since some of the segregation and redaction process is required by law, HLC is entitled to charge a fee for that portion and does not view a petition for such exemptions as a necessary prerequisite, but is included herein for completeness. 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. Please note, Mr. Fitzpatrick 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).

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/0373 Page 5 February 11, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shane Fitzpatrick