Requester, Anonymous v. Department of Transitional Assistance (SPR 20260662)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 12, 2026 SPR26/0662 Lauren E. Picone, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transitional Assistance 600 Washington Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Dear Attorney Picone: I have received the petition of an anonymous requestor (requestor) appealing the response of the Department of Transitional Assistance (Department/DTA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 13, 2025, the requestor sought the following records: Please provide all emails, drafts, approvals, internal communications, and records regarding the creation, review, and posting of the SNAP message referring to “President Trump,” “Congressional Republicans,” and the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Please also identify the employee(s) who authored or approved this message. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3675 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 30, 2025) and SPR26/0281 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 11, 2026). In my February 11th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify its claims for withholding records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Subsequently, the Department responded on February 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, the requestor petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0662, 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 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

Lauren E. Picone, Esq. SPR26/0662 Page 2 March 12, 2026 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 the appeal petition, the requestor contends that “the issue is whether DTA has met its burden under G.L. c. 66, § 10A to withhold 18 records based on attorney-client privilege.” The Department’s Responses In its February 23, 2026 response, the Department explains the following: On January 23, 2026, DTA produced, via an Adobe link: • 298-page PDF with responsive emails and draft communications; • 2 Excel Spreadsheets; • 4 WAV audio files. DTA withheld 18 records involving discussions where DTA employees sought legal advice on messaging from attorneys in the Governor’s Legal Office (GLO) pursuant to the attorney client privilege. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460.

Lauren E. Picone, Esq. SPR26/0662 Page 3 March 12, 2026 Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its previous February 11, 2026 response, the Department explained the following: DTA withheld records involving discussions where DTA employees sought legal advice on messaging from attorneys in the Governor’s Legal Office (GLO) pursuant to the attorney client privilege. Specifically, DTA has withheld: 18 records responsive to the request. . . . DTA maintains that communications between DTA employees and GLO, concerning legal advice surrounding DTA’s government shutdown related messaging, are protected from public disclosure under the attorney client privilege. See Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. v. Div. of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 444, 448-52 (2007) (finding confidential communications between public officers and employees and governmental entities and their legal counsel, undertaken for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or assistance, are protected under the normal rules of the attorney-client privilege). The Executive Offices and their constituent agencies serve at the behest of and report to the Governor. See G.L. c. 6A, §§ 2 and 4. The Governor’s attorneys provide legal advice to all Executive Offices’ General Counsels in order to promote and execute the Governor’s agenda. Such communications create a direct attorney-client relationship between the Governor’s Legal Office and her Secretariats’ General Counsels and their constituent agencies’ General Counsels. As such, the Governor’s attorneys’ legal advice is necessarily confidential and protected for the Governor and her administration to effectuate the business of the governing. In its February 23rd response, the Department further explains the following: DTA hereby confirms that it has not waived the attorney-client privilege as it applies to the documents withheld from its response to the above-referenced public records request, as required under Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. v. Div. of Capital Asset Management, 444, 450 (2007) (requiring confirmation that the privilege as to the withheld communications has not been waived). With its February 23rd response, the Department also provides an updated privilege log, identifying eighteen documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege.

Lauren E. Picone, Esq. SPR26/0662 Page 4 March 12, 2026 Where the Department has provided a detailed description of each record withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, including the names of the authors and recipients, the dates, the substance, and the grounds for claiming the privilege, and has also confirmed that the communications were made in confidence and that the privilege has not been waived, I find the Department has met its burden to withhold the responsive records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If the requestor is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anonymous Requestor