Steven Bachelor v. Holyoke Community College (SPR 20253282)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 14, 2025 SPR25/3282 Narayan Sampath Records Access Officer Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Mr. Sampath: On November 6, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Holyoke Community College (College) 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, it is my understanding that the College furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Steven Bachelor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). From October 20, 2025 through October 30, 2025, Mr. Bachelor submitted 19 public records requests. Prior Petition This request was the subject of a prior time petition. See SPR25/3226 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025). In my November 7th determination, I granted the College an extension of 20 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Agencies A fee shall not 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. 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). 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

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3282 Page 2 November 14, 2025 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 redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Agencies An agency may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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. Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the College argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): The volume of records responsive to these requests is extensive, and 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. The categories of documents may include attorney client privilege, FERPA, ADA, Personally Identifiable Information, Medical Records or other sensitive protected information. These documents require careful review to ensure that any personnel or student information is properly identified and redacted before disclosure.

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3282 Page 3 November 14, 2025 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. Additionally, any reports, summaries, or notes within the files could unintentionally disclose other 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 reveal private details about individuals who are not the subject of the request, necessitating thorough review and appropriate redaction before release. Given the nature of the potentially responsive records, the requests cannot prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion The College submitted its petition on November 6, 2025, more than ten business days after receipt of the requests placed on and prior to October 22, 2025. In light of the fact the College has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records cannot be granted for these requests. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(d). Please be advised that this determination does not preclude the College from charging for segregation and redaction that is required by law. However, 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 requests placed on and after October 23, 2025, could not prudently be completed without segregation or redaction. 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 segregation and redaction for these requests. This office encourages Mr. Bachelor and the College to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Please note, Mr. Bachelor 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, §§ 10A(c).

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3282 Page 4 November 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steven Bachelor