Reilly, Judith v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20260500)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2026 SPR26/0500 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Counsel and Records Access Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 110 Cambridge Street 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 January 20, 2026, Ms. Reilly requested: [1] A download of the data from the most recently filed "Top 5 Compensation" forms of all Massachusetts local housing authorities. [2] Copies of communications from and to EOHLC regarding the calculation or recalculation of the compensation of the executive director of the Salem Housing Authority for the Authority's fiscal years running from October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024, and from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025. This request includes, but is not limited to, the salary/compensation calculation worksheet, revisions to the salary/compensation calculation worksheet, and correspondence about the salary/compensation calculation worksheet. This includes, but is not limited to, correspondence regarding the inclusion of Leefort Terrace units in the executive director salary/compensation calculation for the fiscal years running from October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024, and from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025. On February 8, 2026, Ms. Reilly narrowed her request as follows: If it would be easier for EOHLC to supply me with the full file of Top 5 Compensation data collected since implementation of the original Top 5 form or since implementation of the revised Top 5 form in CY 2020, that would be fine. I can run my own queries. In fact, that might allow me to do my research without 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. SPR26/0500 Page 2 February 25, 2026 contacting EOHLC about Top 5 Compensation for another year. The Office responded to Ms. Reilly’s January 20th request on February 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Reilly petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0500, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Reilly contends, “… EOHLC provided no further communication before the close of business on February 10, 2026. … EOHLC’s failure to produce any responsive records—or to state that none exist—appears to violate the Public Records Law. …” The Office’s February 3rd Response In its response on February 3, 2026, the Office stated: Please be advised HLC intends to provide records responsive to the request but is notifying you we are extending the responsive timeline to 15 business days following the revised request for public records pursuant to G.L.c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Please note that HLC intends to utilize the entirety of the statutorily allowable 15 business days, making our response due on February 10, 2026.

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/0500 Page 3 February 25, 2026 Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the 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 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 8, 2026, it is unclear why the Office has not provided the responsive records. 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). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Office must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. 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