Che, Sicheng v. Department of Occupational Licensure (SPR 20260639)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 3, 2026 SPR26/0639 Malav Patel, Esq. Assistant General Counsel for Public Affairs Division of Occupational Licensure One Federal Street, 6th floor Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Patel: On February 25, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Division of Occupational Licensure (Division) 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 Division furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Sicheng Che. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 10, 2025, Mr. Che requested, “…copies of public records of elevator inspection records, and Elevator Incident Reports between the time range of January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2025, for the elevators registered at [identified addresses].” 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)(ii); 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 purpose. 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

Malav Patel SPR26/0639 Page 2 March 3, 2026 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. Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the Division argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): The requested records are stored electronically, necessitating DOL staff to locate and identify then closely review for responsive records to ensure that these records are consistent with the nature of the records you are seeking. Please be advised, a number of these responsive documents may contain potentially privileged materials and materials exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law and other statutes, including without limitation, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) and attorney-client privilege. In light of the Division’s petition, I find that the Division 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 Division may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Malav Patel SPR26/0639 Page 3 March 3, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Division may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Division to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Che 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: Sicheng Che