Harvey, Joseph v. Executive Office of Economic Development (SPR 20260529)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0529 Robert J. McGovern, Esq. Senior Deputy General Counsel Executive Office of Economic Development 1 Ashburton Place, Unit 2101 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney McGovern: On February 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Economic Development (Office) 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, it is my understanding that the Office furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Joseph Harvey. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 2, 2026, Mr. Harvey requested, “copies of public records relating to Education First, including but not limited to Education First (EF), Education First, Inc., EF Education First Ltd., and any related or affiliated entities, concerning state or municipal economic development incentives.” 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 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 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

Robert J. McGovern, Esq. SPR26/0529 Page 2 February 20, 2026 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 petition, the Office requests, “approval to assess a fee…” In support of its petition, the Office provides the following information: These potentially responsive documents may contain privileged materials and materials exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law and other statutes, including without limitation, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), and (d), attorney client privilege, and other applicable exemptions. Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, commonly referred to as the “privacy exemption,” allows an agency to withhold personnel and medical files or information, as well as “any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. See M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). We anticipate the potentially

Robert J. McGovern, Esq. SPR26/0529 Page 3 February 20, 2026 responsive records will contain home addresses, personal email addresses or phone numbers. We also anticipate there could be information unrelated to the request within the responsive records that constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as details of personnel records, medical appointments, family relationships, etc. We additionally anticipate the potentially responsive records may contain documentation and materials that are subject to active and ongoing deliberat[iv]e process review as part of MOBD’s business development strategies and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Deliberat[iv]e Process Exemption of the Public Records Law. See M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). The Deliberative Process Exemption is intended to avoid release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if prematurely disclosed. 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Office to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Harvey 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: Joseph Harvey