Saldinger, Anna v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (SPR 20261232)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2026 SPR26/1232 Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. Associate General Counsel Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Chicojay Moore: On April 3, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Office/EEA) 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, Anna Saldingar. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 20, 2026, Ms. Saldingar requested, “…records relating to driving under the influence arrests made by the Massachusetts Environmental Police from Jan. 1, 2023 to Dec. 21, 2025.” 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

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR26/1232 Page 2 April 9, 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, the Office requests “approval to assess a fee…” In support of its petition, the Office provides the following information: A significant portion of the records requested will contain materials exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, including but not limited to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26 (a), (c), and (f). The records are likely to include investigatory materials, including investigative interview techniques used by the Massachusetts Environmental Police (MEP), the disclosure of which would likely prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement (exemption (f)) or Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) covered by exemption (a). The records are also likely to include medical information or personal identifying information that should be withheld under exemptions (c) and (a). These exemptions are particularly likely to apply because MEP records often contain home addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, and other personal identifying information related to named individuals, the disclosure of which is likely to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy that should be redacted, and/or “personal data” as defined in G.L. c. 66A, § 1.

Katrina Chicojay Moore, Esq. SPR26/1232 Page 3 April 9, 2026 EEA has an obligation to ensure that proper procedures are maintained to prevent the dissemination of information which is protected from disclosure by law. This requires careful review and segregation of records before they are produced to a requestor. Segregation and redaction of records often involves the application of multiple exemptions to the public records law to a single record. Some information is simultaneously protected by more than one exemption or different exemptions depending on context or time of disclosure. In light of the Office’s petition, I find that 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, Ms. Saldinger 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: Anna Saldinger