Abbas Khan v. Bristol Community College (SPR 20251632)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 13, 2025 SPR25/1632 Joyce Faria Brennan Records Access Officer Bristol Community College 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Brennan: On June 9, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Bristol Community College (College) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating and 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 College furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Abbas Khan. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 4, 2025, Abbas Khan requested “[p]urchase records report from 01/01/2022 to date in electronic format. The report must include vendor name, purchase description, purchase date and total price paid for all purchases.” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. 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

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/1632 Page 2 June 13, 2025 G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current Petition In its petition, the College requests “an extension of twenty (20) additional business days” and states “due to the volume and complexity of this request, the College does not have the capacity to produce the requested records within the standard ten-business-day timeframe.” In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the College to produce the records without an extension, the College has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The College is granted an extension of 20 business days. Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The 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 redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public 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 understanding 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

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/1632 Page 3 June 13, 2025 redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the College requests “permission to charge a fee for the time and resources necessary to fulfill a public records request submitted by Abbas Khan on June 4, 2025” and provides the following in support of its request: [T]he request seeks all purchase records from January 1, 2022, to the present, including vendor names, purchase descriptions, dates, and total amounts paid. While the College is committed to transparency, this request involves a large volume of records spanning over three years and necessitates cooperation across multiple departments including IT and Accounts Payable to retrieve data from various systems. [I]n accordance with Exemption (c) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law, we also note that certain records could be inadvertently included in the compiling of the information including payments made directly to individuals, such as student

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/1632 Page 4 June 13, 2025 or employee stipends. Disclosure of such personal financial information could be considered an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Each potentially affected document must undergo a detailed review and redaction process to ensure compliance with this exemption. Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the College has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion As described above, I find that the College has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days. Additionally, I find the College has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the College may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the College to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Abbas Khan 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: Abbas Khan