Echavarria, Randy v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (SPR 20262369)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 29, 2026 SPR26/2369 Adrian Walleigh, Esq. Counsel and Records Access Officer Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Walleigh: On June 23, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (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, I understand that the Office furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Randy Echavarria. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 8, 2026, Mr. Echavarria requested the following: To prepare emergency civil rights litigation, I am formally requesting a full, unredacted copy of my centralized agency profiles from August 1, 2024, through April 30, 2025, specifically including: 1. For DTA: All intake notes, application uploads, and electronic referral logs generated by DTA staff—specifically including [a named individual]— regarding our emergency family shelter referral. This includes any system metadata showing the exact dates and times our referral was processed, delayed, or suppressed. 2. For EOHLC: All system audit trails, digital footprint logs, data-entry histories, and forensic tracking profiles associated with my name and Social Security Number. I require the terminal tracking data showing our multiple un-logged intake sessions completed between August and December 2024. 3. Inter-Agency Communications: All internal emails, system messages, text logs, and electronic files sent between DTA employees and EOHLC housing workers regarding our household’s eligibility determinations and placement requests. Subsequently, the Office provided a revised petition to this office and Mr. Echavarria on June 24, 2026. In two emails to this office and the Office on June 24, 2026, Mr. Echavarria 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

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/2369 Page 2 June 29, 2026 objects to the Office’s petition. 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. 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.

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/2369 Page 3 June 29, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its June 24, 2026 revised petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under the attorney-client privilege, the Office argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c): - Privacy Exemption (G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)) - The documents requested contain or may contain personal identifying information, such as non-public mailing addresses, social security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the privacy exemption. - Attorney-Client Privilege - Some of the records that may be responsive to the request are communications between HLC staff and attorneys or amongst attorneys. These communications are subject to attorney-client privilege and are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law to the extent they consist of communications about legal matters between counsel and client, or between attorneys representing clients with a common interest. These communications were made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or providing confidential legal advice, did not include any person who was not an employee or attorney within HLC, and were not otherwise disclosed to a third party. Accordingly, the privilege has not been waived. HLC 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 the time of disclosure. 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. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the Office may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. It is my understanding that Mr. Echavarria has already appealed the Office’s fee estimate, which is currently open under SPR26/2343.

Adrian Walleigh, Esq. SPR26/2369 Page 4 June 29, 2026 Please note, Mr. Echavarria 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: Randy Echavarria