Sandra Lygren v. Bristol Community College (SPR 20253607)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 15, 2025 SPR25/3607 Joyce Faria Brennan Vice President, Marketing & Communications Records Access Officer Bristol Community College 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Brennan: On December 6, 2025, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of Bristol Community College (College) seeking an extension of time to produce records, and 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, I understand that the College furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Sandra Lygren. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). 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. 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 SPR25/3607 Page 2 December 15, 2025 Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (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 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) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the College requests an extension of 20 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: 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. Accordingly, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)–(vi) and 950 CMR 32.06(4)(e), the College respectfully requests an extension of time to respond and authorization to charge reasonable fees for the work required to search for, segregate, and compile these records for production. Given the scope of this

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/3607 Page 3 December 15, 2025 request, the holiday season, and staff availability, fulfilling it will require additional time and resources. By consolidating the three requests into a single review, rather than processing them separately, the College is reducing redundancy and conserving resources for both the institution and the requester. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, and examine the records, the capacity of the College to produce the request without the extension, and efforts undertaken by the College in fulfilling the current request the College has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). 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 determination 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). 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.

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/3607 Page 4 December 15, 2025 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 to Assess Fees In its petition, the College requests permission to assess fees for segregation and redaction. In correspondence included with its petition, the College indicates that the responsive records will include personnel files, and explains that “any associated charges will be limited to those necessary to comply with Exemption (a), Exemption (c), or the attorney-client privilege.” 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. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames The College and Ms. Lygren are advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents;

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR25/3607 Page 5 December 15, 2025 (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Ms. Lygren and the College to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Lygren may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the College to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The College must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the College has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the College may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Ms. Lygren is advised that she may appeal the College’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Lygren 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: Sandra Lygren