Lorenson, Allie v. Bristol Community College (SPR 20260354)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0354 Joyce Brennan Records Access Officer Bristol Community College 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Brennan: On February 3, 2026, 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, Allie Lorenson. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 22, 2026, Ms. Lorenson requested “records dated December 1, 2020 through September 1, 2023,” limited to the following: Email Records • Emails sent or received by [an identified individual] and/or emails sent by other faculty and staff that reference or include [identified names] (including reasonable variations of their names appearing in the subject line, message body, or “to/from” field). • Emails sent to or received from [an identified email address], as well as any other email addresses clearly associated with [identified individuals]. Calendar & Meeting Records • Calendar invitations, calendar entries, or meeting requests sent to or involving [identified individuals]. • Any associated meeting links or access information, including but not limited to Outlook calendar entries, Zoom links, Microsoft Teams links, or similar virtual meeting platforms. 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 Brennan SPR26/0354 Page 2 February 5, 2026 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: The volume of records responsive to this request is extensive… The request involves approximately 113 records that directly request the search of students by name and a former College employee. Per Allie Lorenson’s request, it is important to note that, while certain automated tools may assist in identifying potentially responsive records, Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 66 and 950 CMR 32) requires careful human review to ensure proper application of all legal exemptions, including those related to employee privacy and FERPA- protected student information. Accordingly, the College cannot agree to any condition that would rely solely on automated determinations or circumvent the

Joyce Brennan SPR26/0354 Page 3 February 5, 2026 legally mandated manual review process. Accordingly, the College respectfully requests an extension of twenty (20) business days… Based on the information provided in the College’s petition, I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate, and examine the records and the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, in conjunction with the capacity of the College to produce the request without the extension, 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 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)(ii); 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).

Joyce Brennan SPR26/0354 Page 4 February 5, 2026 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, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the College argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): Some documents may fall under MGL Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(a) and (c), as well as other protections related to employee privacy. Additionally, certain records may contain student education information protected under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prohibits disclosure of personally identifiable student information without consent. These exemptions require careful review to ensure that any sensitive information is properly identified and redacted before disclosure. 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. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the College has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the College may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Ms. Lorenson and the College to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the College must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Please note, Ms. Lorenson 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).

Joyce Brennan SPR26/0354 Page 5 February 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Allie Lorenson.