Colman Herman v. Roxbury Community College (SPR 20252739)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 30, 2025 SPR25/2739 Jordan E. Smock Associate Vice President Roxbury Community College 1234 Columbus Avenue Roxbury, MA 02120 Dear Ms. Smock: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of Roxbury Community College (College/RCC) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 13, 2025, Mr. Herman sought “… a list of accomplishments of [an identified individual] in her position at [the College][.]” On August 19, 2025, the College provided Mr. Herman with a description of “The Fort” program. On August 19, 2025, Mr. Herman posed several questions and requested “… records that document the Fort activities that you cite.” The College responded on August 20, September 9, September 12, and September 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Herman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2739, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the College provided a supplemental response on September 18, 2025. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian 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

Jordan E. Smock SPR25/2739 Page 2 September 30, 2025 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The College’s Responses In its August 20, 2025 response, the College stated that it likely would not be able to provide a response until September. In its September 9, 2025 response, the College answered several of the questions posed by Mr. Herman on August 19, 2025. In a subsequent email communication on September 9, 2025, Mr. Herman posed several follow-up questions, and clarified that his inquiry seeking “records that document the Fort activities you cite” was a request for public records. In its September 12, 2025 response, the College stated: RCC is engaging with you as a member of the media, in good faith, to provide you with the substantive information required for accurate reporting. Your inquiry is not a public records request, as it was not directed to RCC’s Records Access Officer and your inquiry did not reference public records law until your latest email. We aim to continue providing you with the information needed for your report without the formality of a public records request. We appreciate your efforts, and the efforts of all journalists, to provide the general public with accurate information about Roxbury Community College. In a September 13, 2025 email communication to the College, Mr. Herman reiterated that his August 19th request for “… records that document the Fort activities that you cite” was made pursuant to the Public Records Law. In its September 15, 2025 response, the College stated that a request for records “… needs to be labeled as a Massachusetts Public Records Request in the subject line and addressed directly to Roxbury Community College’s Records Access Officer.” Current Appeal In his September 17, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Herman contended that the College had not met its obligation to respond to the request under the Public Records Law. In its September 18, 2025 response, the College contended that Mr. Herman had submitted a “media inquiry,” rather than a public records request. The College further stated that it was unaware Mr. Herman was seeking to file a public records request until the submission of

Jordan E. Smock SPR25/2739 Page 3 September 30, 2025 this appeal. The College requested that this office “… require Mr. Herman to submit a public records request to [the Records Access Officer’s] attention to receive a public records response.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Mr. Herman sought copies of public records in the College’s possession on August 19, 2025 and clarified that his request was made pursuant to the Public Records Law on September 9 and September 13, 2025. Where the College has not provided responsive records, I find the College has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the College must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the College must provide the requested records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the College is ordered to provide Mr. Herman with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Herman may appeal the substantive nature of the College’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman