Jeswald, David v. Bridgewater State University (SPR 20260188)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0188 Laura Machado Staff Associate and Public Information Officer Bridgewater State University Boyden Hall, Room 200 Bridgewater, MA 02325 Dear Ms. Machado: On January 20, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of Bridgewater State University (University) seeking relief from the obligation to produce 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 University furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, David Jeswald. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 19, 2025, Mr. Jeswald requested: [C]opies of public records that pertain to the Bridgewater State University email account [two specified email addresses and a specified individual] in Bridgewater State University’s possession, custody, or control, which the name is used, or it is plausible to assume that [a second named individual] has/had been referenced/referred to in any way and training records: documentation of the Records Access Officer’s training on public records law, including any materials given to Records Access Officer(s) in the handling of records requests and any internal communications related to [the individual]’s handling of requests received at the time of request to current, received from email account [specified email addresses]. Please include copies of initial requests, denials, justifications, and fee estimates. Please provide a copy information regarding the submission(s) of logged information into the Public Records Request Database, such as nature of request(s), date of request(s), or any other pertinent information submitted on the online Reporting Requirement form(s). In multiple emails to this office, Mr. Jeswald objected to the University’s petition. 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

Laura Machado SPR26/0188 Page 2 January 27, 2026 Petitions for an Extension of Time and for Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records 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 Relief In its petition, the University seeks “to be relieved of the obligation to respond to the December 19, 2025 Public Record Request.” In support of its request, the University provides the following information: The Request is one of many that the University has received from the Requestor since 2023. The University has expended much time and many resources to respond to the Requestor’s 14 previous requests since 2023, as well as the numerous appeals and re-appeals the Requestor has pursued. The instant Request consists of multiple discrete requests, some of which would be oppressively burdensome for the University to respond to, some of which are duplicative of earlier requests, and some of which are directed at the qualifications and conduct of the Records Access Officer (“RAO”) who handled the earlier requests, and

Laura Machado SPR26/0188 Page 3 January 27, 2026 thus are intended to intimidate or harass that RAO. As such, the University seeks to be relieved of the obligation to respond to the Request. As written, the Request contains up to 6 discrete requests . . . Addressing each of the factors set forth in SPR Bulletin 03-17 below, the University states: 1. The need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records The Request seeks, in effect, all documents of any kind in the University’s possession, custody, or control that reference the Requestor in connection with any of his requests. This includes emails, notes, and electronic and hardcopy files. A preliminary search of the RAO’s email account for the Requestor’s name yields over 2,000 emails. A preliminary search of the Requestor’s university email account yields over 3,000 emails to 260 different custodians, any one of which may pertain to one or more of the Requestor’s previous requests and thus fall within the scope of the Request. It would require countless hours for the RAO to segregate and examine these emails to determine which ones pertain to one of the Requestor’s past requests. Moreover, due to the complexity of responding to the Requestor’s previous requests and appeals, the RAO’s Office has had numerous communications with counsel, which are exempted from production under the attorney-client privilege. Extensive time and care would be required to segregate and log such communications, and it may require retention of counsel to ensure that it is done properly. Furthermore, responsive records will need to be examined to identify and redact any FERPA-protected information as well as other information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 2. The scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure As noted above, the University would need to withhold and/or redact information from a great many records. The Requestor’s earlier requests include requests pertaining to faculty members, staff, and students, each of whom may have been named in previously produced records or in communications about whether and how to produce those records in response to the Requestor’s earlier requests. Redacting these documents would be unduly burdensome for the University. 3. The capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the Request without the extension The RAO normally works from 8am to 4pm Monday through Friday and is responsible for handling all public record requests that come into the University. ... On average, the RAO receives one to two public record requests per week, each of which must be handled expeditiously. The RAO has several other core responsibilities besides handling record requests, including assisting students and

Laura Machado SPR26/0188 Page 4 January 27, 2026 families with resolving complaints and inquiries directed to the President’s Office related to housing, academic, financial and general matters. The RAO also manages scheduling for the Barry House (formerly a Presidential Residence) which is utilized for meetings, events, receptions, and short-term guest accommodations. When needed, the RAO also provides scheduling support for the President and serves as Notary Public for students, faculty and staff of the University. The RAO does not have the capacity to handle a record request that will take dozens upon dozens of hours, if not more, to respond. 4. Efforts undertaken by the University in fulfilling the current Request and previous requests The University has been thorough and accommodating in responding to each of the Requestor’s earlier requests and appeals therefrom, in many cases engaging legal counsel to assist. A summary of these earlier requests and the University’s efforts to respond is attached hereto. Although the Requestor has appealed and re- appealed many of his earlier requests, those appeals were decided in the University’s favor in all but one instance. 5. 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 University The Request targets the RAO directly, seeking the RAO’s “training records” and “any materials given to [the RAO] in the handling of record requests.” It furthermore seeks all emails in the RAO’s email account that reference the Requestor. This can be nothing more than an attempt to harass and intimidate the RAO. The Request has nothing to do with the Requestor’s education by the University, which terminated in October 2025 upon the Requestor’s graduation from the University. The Request seeks essentially all documents the University has pertaining to all the Requestor’s past requests, nearly all of which the Requestor already has in his possession. The RAO’s internal communications and external communications with counsel concerning the Requestor’s current and past requests are of no use to the Requestor and are being sought for the purpose of harassing the RAO and the University. The rest of the Request is largely duplicative of earlier requests. For these reasons, the entirety of the Request is frivolous. 6. The public interest served by expeditious disclosure The records sought by the Request are of no interest to the public. The Requestor—who had no ongoing relationship with the University outside of these public record requests— seeks these records for his own purposes, not for broad dissemination to the public about actual or alleged government activity. Thus, the public interest will not be served by expeditious disclosure of any of the requested records. On the contrary, the public interest would best be served by relieving the

Laura Machado SPR26/0188 Page 5 January 27, 2026 RAO of the obligation to respond to the Request so that the RAO can devote their limited time and resources to responding to non-frivolous requests and to serving the interests of students, faculty, staff, and the greater University community. Based on the information provided in the University’s petition, I find that the University has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to grant the University’s request for relief from the obligation to provide responsive records. To the extent possible, the University must provide records on a rolling basis. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Jeswald