Martel, Jay v. Chelsea Housing Authority (SPR 20261273)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2026 SPR26/1273 Yolanda Velazquez Deputy Director/Records Access Officer Chelsea Housing Authority 54 Locke Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Ms. Velazquez: On April 7, 2026, this office received the petition of Susan M. Whalen, Esq., on behalf of the Chelsea Housing Authority (Authority) 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 Authority furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Jay Martel. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 12, 2026, Mr. Martel requested the following: [1] All Correspondence Regarding 624 Broadway and Luther Jackson: All internal and external communications, memoranda, emails, notes, reports, and records of any kind generated, received, or maintained by CHA relating to the tenancy of [identified individuals] from January 1, 2023 through the date of this request. [2] Landlord Notification Records: All records reflecting receipt, review, logging, routing, or response to any written or oral notification submitted by 624 Broadway LLC or its agents regarding Housing Quality Standards (HQS) deficiencies, life- safety hazards, or sanitary conditions at [identified address], Massachusetts, including but not limited to the written notification submitted on or about January 21, 2026[;] [3] HQS Inspection Records: All Housing Quality Standards inspection reports, pass/fail determinations, deficiency notices, abatement records, reinspection records, and related documentation for the unit [identified address], Massachusetts, for the period January 1, 2020 through the date of this request[;] [4] Internal Action Records Following January 21, 2026 Notification: All records reflecting any action taken, considered, or recommended by CHA staff in response 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

Yolanda Velazquez SPR26/1273 Page 2 April 14, 2026 to the January 21, 2026 landlord notification of tenant-caused HQS deficiencies at [identified address], including any determination that no action was required and the basis for that determination[;] [5] Family Obligation Enforcement Records: All records reflecting any action taken or considered by CHA under 24 CFR § 982.552 or 24 CFR § 982.551 with respect to the tenancy at [identified address], Massachusetts, including any notices, informal hearings, or termination proceedings involving the assisted household[;] [6] HAP Contract and Payment Records: All Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract records, payment histories, abatement records, and HAP suspension or termination records relating to [identified address], Massachusetts, from January 1, 2023 through the date of this request[;] [7] CHA Policies and Procedures: CHA’s current written policies and administrative procedures governing (a) response to landlord HQS complaints and notifications; (b) initiation of family obligation enforcement under 24 CFR § 982.552; and (c) HAP abatement and the determination of whether HQS deficiencies are owner-caused or family-caused under 24 CFR § 982.404[;] [8] Communications with Partner Agencies: All records of communications between CHA and any of the following entities regarding the tenancy at [identified address], Massachusetts: North Suffolk Community Services, Bay Cove Human Services (Tenancy Preservation Program), Chelsea Housing Authority’s internal case management staff, and any other social service or outreach agency involved in this matter. In an email, the Authority clarified that though the request was sent on March 12, 2026, their office had not received the request until March 25, 2026. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or

Yolanda Velazquez SPR26/1273 Page 3 April 14, 2026 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. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities 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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its petition, the Authority requests permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. In support of its petition, the Authority provides the following information: The CHA has identified over 400 pages of documents that are responsive to the request. The personally identifying information (“PII”) for public housing tenants as well as other confidential and privileged information that is maintained by the CHA, in accordance with federal law, must be reviewed and possibly redacted to protect their PII and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c). In light of the Authority’s petition, I find that the Authority has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed

Yolanda Velazquez SPR26/1273 Page 4 April 14, 2026 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 Authority 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 Authority may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Authority to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Martel 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: Jay Martel