Melissa Ptacek v. Mount Wachusett Community College (SPR 20180868)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords June 27, 2018 SPR18/868 Robert E. LaBonte Vice President of Finance & Administration Mount Wachusett Community College 444 Green Street Gardner, MA 01440 Dear Mr. LaBonte: I have received the petition of Melissa Ptacek appealing the response of the Mount Wachusett Community College (MWCC) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § IOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms. Ptacek requested various records related to discrimination complaints filed with the MWCC Affirmative Action Office (and/or Title IX Coordinator) for several years. MWCC initially responded with a fee estimate. Ms. Ptacek subsequently submitted amended requests and MWCC provided various responses to them. Fee estimates 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, § IO(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, § lO(d)(i). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four 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. 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, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(ii); 950 CMR 32.06(4). 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

Robert E. LaBonte SPR18/868 Page2 June 27, 2018 Current appeal I understand that Ms. Ptacek initially requested records on March 30, 2018 and MWCC provided a fee estimate for the production ofrecords. On May 18, 2018 Ms. Ptacek requested "the number of complaints in each year between 2005 and 2015" and MWCC provided records on June 4, 2018. Ms. Ptacek subsequently requested records on June 10, 2018 and notes in her appeal petition that "in order to charge me now for a request of June 10, he now wishes to charge me for 4 hours preliminary work (some of it umelated to the request) extending back to March 30." She indicates that" ... now, in order to charge me for this June request, he is claiming that all of the requests form one continuous request." In a June 18, 2018 email you assert "[i]t is my position that all of these request are a continuation of her original requests and not new requests. Inasmuch as I have been informed by the College's Department of Human Resources that they have already spent over 8 hours reviewing files in an effort to respond to the many amendments to the original request that was made I am asking that Ms. Ptacek pay for any additional staff time required to fulfill her request." It is my understanding that the request at issue in this appeal is Ms. Ptacek's June 10th request that seeks pages of records containing the complaint and pages of records with the final decision. In response to this request, MWCC sent Ms. Ptacek an invoice for one hour of time to produce responsive records. Although the subsequent requests from Ms. Ptacek are related to her initial March 30th request, these requests were not submitted simultaneously; instead, it appears the requests were made in an attempt to obtain records more efficiently and affordably because they provide specific time periods and/or types ofrecords sought. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to rroduce records sought more efficiently and affordably). I find MWCC may not treat the June 1o t request as a continuation of the March 30th request. Therefore, the June 10th request must be considered a new request for the purposes of providing the first four hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested at no cost. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(ii). Further, it is unclear whether segregation and/or redaction ofresponsive records is required by law. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii) (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, § lO(d)(iv)). Conclusion Accordingly, MWCC is ordered to provide Ms. Ptacek with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Robert E. LaBonte SPR18/868 Page 3 June 27, 2018 within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Melissa Ptacek