Steven Bachelor v. Holyoke Community College (SPR 20253730)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3730 Narayan Sampath Records Access Officer Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Mr. Sampath: On December 18, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Holyoke 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, it is my understanding that the College furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Dr. Steven Bachelor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). Between December 4, 2025 and December 7, 2025, Dr. Bachelor submitted 28 requests for public records pertaining to various administrative and personnel matters. 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 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 SPR25/3730 Page 2 December 23, 2025 (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 extensions of 20 business days from the receipt of each individual request. In support of its request, the College stated: The College continues to believe that this public records request is designed to disrupt the College’s operations, particularly as they are repetitive and excessive. In addition, Mr. Bachelor’s public records requests contain 28 separate requests, with multiple documents sought in each of the 28 requests, which could result in a voluminous number of records, some of which may be subject to exemptions pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4, section 7(26). The nature of the records requested, which involve emails and other documents that contain, for example, sensitive, safety, and/or security information, require that each record be carefully reviewed to ensure that production of the document is lawful. The compilation, review, segregation and possible redaction of said documents will require the engagement of numerous key administrators. Thus, for any or all of the reasons outlined above, the College does not have the capacity to fully identify and review documents responsive to the request, determine all applicable exemptions, and produce the requested documents by the tenth business day following its receipt as required by the law. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you grant the College an extension of twenty (20) business days from the dates of 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).

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3730 Page 3 December 23, 2025 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 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,

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3730 Page 4 December 23, 2025 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. 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). In its petition, the College also states, “[t]he 28 requests are associated with SPR25/3200, SPR25/3226 and SPR25/2844 that we worked with your office on and are part of an MCAD filing with docket # 25WEM02807[.]” Pending Administrative Proceeding 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. Conclusion In light of the pending administrative 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).

Narayan Sampath SPR25/3730 Page 5 December 23, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steven Bachelor