Sandra Lygren v. Bristol Community College (SPR 20253606)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 19, 2025 SPR25/3606 Joyce Faria Brennan Vice President, Marketing & Communications Records Access Officer Bristol Community College 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Brennan: I have received the petition of Sandra Lygren appealing the response of the Bristol Community College (College) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 21, 2025, Ms. Lygren requested the following: [A]ll conflict-of-interest disclosures maintained by Bristol Community College for the year 2023. This request includes, but is not limited to, any disclosures, notices, statements, forms, or filings made under M.G.L. c. 268A, including: • Appearance-of-conflict disclosures • Financial-interest disclosures • Recusal notices • Disclosures under §§ 6, 19, 20, and 23(b)(3) • Outside employment or outside activity disclosures • Disclosures related to vendor contracts, procurement, or financial relationships • Any internal conflict-of-interest forms, memoranda, or documentation filed by any employee or administrator[.] On the same date, Ms. Lygren also submitted requests for the same records for the years 2024 and 2025. I understand the College assigned reference numbers 308, 309, and 310 to these requests. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the College. See SPR25/3607 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 15, 2025). In my December 15th determination, I found that the College had met its burden for an extension of time, and to assess 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 SPR25/3606 Page 2 December 19, 2025 fees for the segregation and redaction of the responsive records. Concurrent with its petition to this office, the College provided Ms. Lygren with a response, including a fee estimate, on December 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the College’s response, and objecting to the fees, Ms. Lygren petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3606, was opened as a result. 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 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. 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).

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/3606 Page 3 December 19, 2025 The College’s December 8th Fee Estimate In its December 8, 2025 response, the College gives a fee estimate totaling $26,660, and provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: The request, as submitted, identifies multiple offices across the College, including Human Resources, the President’s Office, Procurement, Finance, and Academic Affairs, as potentially holding responsive conflict-of-interest disclosures, which substantially expands the number of individuals and departments that must search and review materials in both hard-copy and electronic formats. Because the requester’s broad scope may not account for the fact that the records are maintained within individual personnel or departmental files, are not centrally documented, and require a file-by-file review to determine whether responsive materials exist, the College must search for, compile, segregate, or reproduce the records, and the time required to do so may properly be assessed as a fee under the Public Records Law. The request seeks all conflict-of-interest disclosures for every College employee over a three-year period (2023–2025), including employees who have separated from the College during those years. To comply, the College must review employee files across multiple systems and storage formats to locate all appearance-of-conflict disclosures, financial-interest disclosures, recusal notices, disclosures under M.G.L. c. 268A §§ 6, 19, 20, and 23(b)(3), outside employment/activity disclosures, procurement- or vendor-related disclosures, and any internal conflict-of-interest forms, memoranda, or related documentation. Because the request spans multiple departments and involves both historical and current records, the volume and complexity of the work are substantial, significantly increasing the time and resources required to identify, compile, and review all responsive documents. Please note that the rate is $25 per hour, excluding the first four hours. With its fee estimate, the College also provided an extensive chart indicating each area of the College that would be required to conduct a search of its records, and the tasks and amount of time required for each search. Additionally, the College explains the following concerning hourly rates and redactions: Hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to complete the record request. The hourly rate shall not exceed twenty-five dollars ($25) per hour, and there is no charge for the first four (4) hours of work. Segregation and redaction will only be performed as required by law, and any associated charges will be limited to those necessary to comply with Exemption (a), Exemption (c), or the attorney-client privilege. No charges will be applied for

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/3606 Page 4 December 19, 2025 items not required to be redacted or segregated by law. Current Appeal In an email to the College on December 16, 2025, Ms. Lygren states “that I am cancelling 308, 209 [sic] and 310 and will resubmit.” In an email to this office on December 17, 2025, the RAO for the College explains the following: Following the determination [for SPR25/3607], I responded to a separate email from Ms. Lygren in which she requested a modified list. In that response, I indicated that I would proceed with the request for the specifically identified individuals. In the interest of good order, I also asked that she rescind the requests for #308, 309, and 310, which had already received approval to charge fees and were granted an extension. The rationale for the fee amount was clearly outlined in the fee estimate. At this time, from the college’s perspective, we are processing the request for the five specific individuals as requested. In this case, where Ms. Lygren has withdrawn the three requests that were the subject of this appeal, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the College’s December 8th fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If unresolved issues remain, Ms. Lygren may further appeal the substantive nature of the College’s response to her narrowed request within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sandra Lygren