Sara Hincapie v. Bristol Community College (SPR 20252590)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2590 Joyce Brennan Vice President of Marketing & Communication Bristol Community College 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Brennan: On September 2, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of Bristol Community College (College) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. See 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, Sara Hincapie. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In three separate requests on August 27, 2025 and August 28, 2025, Ms. Hincapie requested the following: Request I On August 27, 2025, Ms. Hincapie requested: [1] Any records of trainings, certifications, licenses, diplomas, or degrees that [an identified individual] submitted to Bristol Community College in connection with his hiring or during his employment[;] [2] Any updated certifications, licenses, or credentials that [an identified individual] presented to the College during his tenure, including those submitted for purposes of wage increases, promotions, or benefits eligibility[;] [3] Any documentation or correspondence maintained by the College verifying such certifications, licenses, or degrees[;] [4] A copy of [an identified individual’s] resignation letter, if applicable, as well as any formal record of the College’s acceptance of his resignation. 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 Brennan SPR25/2358 Page 2 September 9, 2025 It is my understanding that the College assigned tracking number 285 to this request. Request II On August 28, 2025, Ms. Hincapie requested: [1] All records of trainings, certifications, or updated licenses [an identified individual] submitted or represented to Bristol Community College during her tenure[;] [2] Any certifications, licenses, diplomas, or degrees [an identified individual] presented at the time of hiring or thereafter, including those submitted in support of wage increases, promotions, or benefits eligibility[;] [3] Any records reflecting continuing education, professional development, or credential maintenance undertaken or reported by [an identified individual] to Bristol Community College[;] [4] Any resignation letter or separation agreement submitted by or concerning [an identified individual]. It is my understanding that the College assigned tracking number 286 to this request. Request III On August 28, 2025, Ms. Hincapie requested: [T]he following records for the duration of [a two identified individuals’] employment at Bristol Community College: For [individual one]: [1] All records of internal investigations, inquiries, or reviews conducted by Bristol Community College concerning his professional conduct, performance, or behavior, whether conducted by Human Resources, compliance offices, or any other internal unit. [2] Any final reports, findings, summaries, determinations, or disciplinary actions (including letters of reprimand, warnings, or separation-related documents) arising from such investigations. For [individual two]: [1] All records of internal investigations, inquiries, or reviews conducted by Bristol Community College concerning her professional conduct, performance, or

Joyce Brennan SPR25/2358 Page 3 September 9, 2025 behavior, whether conducted by Human Resources, compliance offices, or any other internal unit[;] [2] Any final reports, findings, summaries, determinations, or disciplinary actions (including letters of reprimand, warnings, or separation-related documents) arising from such investigations[;] [3] Any records of trainings, certifications, licenses, diplomas, or degrees that [an identified individual] submitted to Bristol Community College in connection with her hiring or during her employment[;] [4] Any updated certifications, licenses, or credentials that [an identified individual] presented to the College during her tenure, including those submitted for purposes of wage increases, promotions, or benefits eligibility[;] [5] Any documentation or correspondence maintained by the College verifying such certifications, licenses, or degrees[;] [6] A copy of [an identified individual’s] resignation letter, if applicable, as well as any formal record of the College’s acceptance of her resignation[.] It is my understanding that the College assigned tracking number 287 to this request. Petition for an Extension of Time (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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor of Records (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

Joyce Brennan SPR25/2358 Page 4 September 9, 2025 request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the College requests an extension of 20 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: Given the need for thorough searching, compiling, segregating and redaction, as well as current institutional priorities such as the inauguration of a new president and the start of the fall semester, fulfilling these requests will require additional time and resources. 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 – 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)(iii); 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 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 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).

Joyce Brennan SPR25/2358 Page 5 September 9, 2025 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. Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a), the College argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law: While the volume of records responsive to these requests is not extensive, some of the documents may fall under MGL Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(a) and MGL Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(c), as well as protections related to employee privacy. These exemptions require careful review to ensure that any sensitive personnel information is properly identified and redacted before disclosure. In an email to Ms. Hincapie and this Office on September 8, 2025, the College provided the following additional information: Employee files may contain documents that have references to accommodation requests, employee assistance program references or records, and other materials that include sensitive personal information. These records often involve private details regarding an employee’s health, personal circumstances, or support needs and therefore require careful review and redaction to safeguard privacy. The request includes references to trainings that, in some cases, may be specific to the individual employee and fall outside the scope of standard training programs. Additionally, any reports, summaries, or notes within the files could unintentionally disclose private information. If correspondence is present, there could be reference to performance improvement plans or disciplinary actions that would also be subject to privacy protections. Such documents frequently contain sensitive information not only about the employee in question but potentially about other employees as well. In these situations, disclosure could inadvertently

Joyce Brennan SPR25/2358 Page 6 September 9, 2025 reveal private details about individuals who are not the subject of the request, necessitating thorough review and appropriate redaction before release. In light of the College’s 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 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 College may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the College has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the College may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). I encourage Ms. Hincapie and the College to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) Please note, Ms. Hincapie 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: Sara Hincapie