Steven Bachelor v. Holyoke Community College (SPR 20253486)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 2, 2025 SPR25/3486 Narayan Sampath Records Access Officer Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Mr. Sampath: On November 24, 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). On November 7, 2025, Mr. Bachelor requested the following records from September 1, 2025 to November 7, 2025: [1] Internal communications (emails, memoranda, instant messages, text messages, and notes) between any HCC employee or officer regarding the determination that [an identified individual’s] complaint would be processed as an affirmative action matter rather than a Title IX complaint[;] [2] Formal or informal guidance, notes, or policies relied upon to justify categorizing the complaint as an affirmative action matter, including internal legal or compliance memoranda[;] [3] Meeting notes, agendas, or minutes from internal meetings discussing the classification of [an identified individual’s] complaint[;] [4] Communications with external counsel or advisors regarding the classification of the Complaint[;] [5] Documentation of the decision-making process, including approvals, internal sign-offs, and instructions issued to staff regarding handling of the complaint[;] 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 SPR25/3486 Page 2 December 2, 2025 [6] Policies, procedures, or checklists employed to evaluate whether a complaint qualifies as Title IX versus Affirmative Action. It is my understanding that the College’s petition to assess fees concerns Items 1, 3, and 4 of Mr. Bachelor’s request. 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). 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

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3486 Page 3 December 2, 2025 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): 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, PII, Medical Records or sensitive protected information. These exemptions require careful review to ensure that any personnel or student information is properly identified and redacted before disclosure. 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 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. Pending Administrative Proceeding In its petition, the College also states, “it has now come to our attention that this public records request and requests associated with SPR25/3200, SPR25/3226 and SPR25/2844 are part of an MCAD filing with docket #25WEM02807[.]” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation.

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3486 Page 4 December 2, 2025 Conclusion In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on the College’s petition at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steven Bachelor