Reilly, Judith v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20260428)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0428 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Counsel and Records Access Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 110 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Walleigh: I have received the petition of Judith Reilly appealing the response of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (Office/EOHLC) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 1, 2025, Ms. Reilly requested, “copies of all correspondence, paper or electronic, to or from the EOHLC relating to a fraud allegedly perpetrated against the Salem Housing Authority on or about September 12, 2025. Reportedly, the total fraud amount was $246,337.85.” The Office provided responses on December 1, 2025, December 8, 2025, January 16, 2026, and January 26, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s responses, Ms. Reilly petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0428, 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. 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. SPR26/0428 Page 2 February 19, 2026 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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. The Office’s Responses In its December 1, 2025 response, the Office acknowledged receipt of Ms. Reilly’s request. In its December 8, 2025 response, the Office stated, “[the] EOHLC has located no records in its possession which are responsive to your request. EOHLC only oversees Salem Housing Authority’s (SHA) state programs, and it is possible the fraud is related to a federal program for which EOHLC has no oversight.” In a January 5, 2026 email to the Office, Ms. Reilly stated, “I am renewing and updating my public records request from December 1, 2025, which you have responded to already.… According to US HUD, HUD has no knowledge of the fraud. The fraud would not appear to have been perpetrated solely against a federal program. As of December 11, 2025, the Massachusetts State Police denied having any records relating to the fraud…I also renew my request that you not inform SHA’s executive director about this request…” In its January 16, 2026 response, the Office stated, “…[p]lease note that EOHLC intends to utilize the entirety of the statutorily allowable 15 business days, making our response due on January 27, 2026…” In a January 21, 2026 email to the Office, Ms. Reilly modified her request and stated, “[h]ere’s some more info that might help you find responsive records…Salem Housing Authority reportedly sent an electronic payment of $246,337.85 intended for [an identified entity] on or about September 12, 2025. This was in connection with a $278,000 state-funded project at SHA’s Farrell Court development (Project 258187 on its Capital Improvement Plan)…Please note that I consider any correspondence between EOHLC and SHA about Public Housing Notice 2024-12 that arose as a result of this fraud to be part of my public records request. That PHN was titled “Cyber Security Alert: Protecting your LHA from Active Threat of Cyber Criminals” and was issued on July 31, 2024.” In its January 26, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[w]e are working on your [request] diligently but will not be able to deliver the response to you by the current due date. We apologize for the delay and will get you the records as soon as possible.” In a January 27, 2026 email to the Office, Ms. Reilly stated, “[t]hank you for letting me know…” In a February 2, 2026 email to the Office, Ms. Reilly modified her request and stated, “[c]ould you update me at your earliest convenience regarding my public records request for

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/0428 Page 3 February 19, 2026 records relating to the reported fraud at Salem Housing Authority…this seems like a situation where your IT department could search staff emails/messages using a list of keywords or phrases and follow up with EOHLC staff who would likely have been emailed, mailed, or messaged about the fraud ([two identified individuals], someone overseeing insurance). That process would not take a lot of time. Please note that I just found an error in the police report, which says the officer visited SHA on Friday, September 13, 2025. September 13, 2025, was a Saturday. It is possible that the day/date of the reported fraud is a day off, too. But I have always said ‘approx. September 12, 2025,’ so any search conducted by EOHLC should have used a reasonable window…” In a February 6, 2026 email to the Office, Ms. Reilly stated, “[p]lease send me by the close of business today whatever documents you have collected in response to my public records request of January 5, 2026, which was for documents relating to the quarter-million dollar fraud that the Salem Housing Authority reported to the Salem Police Department on or about September 12, 2025. That is, please do not delay sending me some of the documents because you are trying to find all of the documents. Additionally, redact as you see fit, and I can appeal redactions later, if appropriate…If SHA has never communicated with EOHLC about the fraud in writing (paper, email, text, other message, insurance claim, etc.), please state that (state that your search has produced no records).” Current Appeal In her February 8, 2026 petition to this office, Ms. Reilly stated, “…I believe EOHLC’s failure to produce any documents or to state that none exist violates the Public Records Law…Pursuant to M. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c), please note that I have one other two-part public records request pending with EOHLC. Specifically, on January 20, 2026, I requested certain data from an EOHLC database. EOHLC sent similar data to me in November 2024 in less than 3 business days in response to a similar request. The second part of my request from January 30, 2026, was for correspondence between EOHLC and SHA on another matter. EOHLC has extended their deadline to 15 days (February 10, 2026). Please note that this additional two-part request is not significant in magnitude or difficulty, given modern technology (keyword search) and the very limited number of EOHLC staff who would have been corresponding with SHA on the issue in question…” Please be advised that if Ms. Reilly is unsatisfied with the Office’s response to her January 20, 2025 request, she may appeal that response separately within ninety (90) calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Timeframe for Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/0428 Page 4 February 19, 2026 municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Reilly modified her request on February 2, 2026, and the Office has not provided responsive records, I find the Office has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the Office must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Ms. Reilly with a response to the 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. Ms. Reilly may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Judith Reilly