Blaze, Drew v. Bristol Community College (SPR 20260406)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 24, 2026 SPR26/0406 Joyce Faria Brennan Records Access Officer Bristol Community College 777 Elsbree Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Brennan: I have received the petition of Drew Blaze appealing the response of 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 January 23, 2026, Mr. Blaze requested the following: [1] Date Range[:] This request is limited to records dated January 1, 2023 through September 1, 2023. [2] Named Custodians[:] This request includes emails sent or received by the following Bristol Community College employees: [eight identified individuals] [3] Search Terms and Subject Matter[:] I request emails by the above individuals, and connected recipients or responses, in which any of the following terms appear, whether in the subject line, message body, or internal discussion context: [13 identified search terms] [4] Scope of Emails Requested[:] This request includes: a) Emails exchanged among the custodians listed above that reference the above terms, along with connected emails, internal or external recipients, internal discussions, responses, recipient replies within the same email chain, or decisions made during the January 1, 2023 through September 1, 2023 time period. 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 SPR26/0406 Page 2 February 24, 2026 [5] Explicit Exclusion[:] Emails authored or sent directly by [an identified individual], and emails sent directly to [an identified individual] as a recipient, are excluded from this request for the purpose of avoiding duplication, as those records are already in my possession. This exclusion applies only to the direct communications themselves. It does not exclude internal communications, side discussions, follow-up messages, forwarded emails, or separate email threads among Bristol Community College faculty or staff that reference, discuss, react to, summarize, or were generated in response to [an identified individual’s] communications, including instances where her email address was removed from the recipient list or where staff communicated internally without including her as a recipient. This request expressly includes any such internal or third-party communications in which [an identified individual] appears solely as the subject of discussion or in connection with the subject matter described in this request, regardless of whether she was an original sender or recipient of a prior related email. [6] Attachments[:] All attachments to responsive emails are requested and must be produced as part of this Public Records Request, regardless of file name, file type, or whether the attachment itself contains the search terms listed above. Attachments are considered part of the responsive record where they were transmitted with, referenced in, or associated with an otherwise responsive email. This request includes, without limitation, documents, PDFs, images, spreadsheets, notes, drafts, or other files attached to responsive emails, even if the attachment content does not independently contain the specified keywords. [7] Search Parameter and Limitations[:] Please limit searches to existing email systems using standard indexed search tools. This request does not require the College to create new documents. This request is intentionally limited by named custodians and direct recipients, a defined date range, and specific identifiers. It does not seek student educational records, counseling information, medical records, or FERPA-protected content and should be fulfillable within the search and distribution time provided under M.G.L. c. 66, §10(d). [8] Exemptions and Withheld Records[:] If the College determines that any responsive record, or portion thereof, is exempt from disclosure, please produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. For any record withheld in whole or in part, please identify each such record and provide the following information to the extent permitted by law: a) the date of the record;

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR26/0406 Page 3 February 24, 2026 b) the sender and recipient(s); c) the subject line or a brief description sufficient to identify the record; and d) the specific statutory exemption(s) relied upon, together with a brief explanation of how each exemption applies. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the College. See SPR26/0369 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2026). In my February 10th determination, I granted the College an extension of 20 business days to respond to the request. Additionally, I found the College could assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemption (c) in the responsive records. In its petition dated February 4, 2026, the College also provided Mr. Blaze with a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the College’s fee estimate, Mr. Blaze petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0406, was opened as a result. 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. 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The College’s February 4th Fee Estimate In its February 4, 2026 petition, the College assessed a fee of $45,025.00 to provide the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the College provided the following information: Based on the 13,750 original emails, which collectively contain approximately 48,125 pages including attachments, the College estimates that 24,063 pages will require redaction for sensitive personnel or student information. Reviewing, segregating, and redacting these records is estimated to require approximately

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR26/0406 Page 4 February 24, 2026 1,801 staff hours. At an hourly rate of $25/hour, this results in a total estimated fee of $45,025 (after the first 4 free hours), as detailed in the table below: Calculation Service Hourly Billable Subtotal Estimated Estimated Notes Type Rate* Hours page per Pages (After hour First 4 Free Hours) 13,750 emails × 3.5 Segregate $25 598 $14,950 80 48,125 pages/email and = 48,125 pages; 45 Review sec/page → 80 pages/hour; 48,125 ÷ 80 = 601.6 − 4 free hours = 598 50% of 48,125 Redaction $25 1,203 $30,075 20 24,063 pages = 24,063 pages; 3 min/page → 20 pages/hour; 24,063 ÷ 20 = 1,203 Total - - 1,801 $45,025 - 48,125 (reviewed) + 24,063 (redacted) *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 4 hours of work. Segregation and redaction will only be performed as required by law, and any associated charges will be limited to those prescribed under Exemption (a) or attorney-client privilege. No charges will be applied for items not required to be redacted or segregated by law. Further, in its petition, the College explained its anticipated redactions as follows: The volume of records responsive to this request is substantial, totaling approximately 13,750 records. 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

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR26/0406 Page 5 February 24, 2026 consent. These exemptions require careful review to ensure that any sensitive information is properly identified and redacted before disclosure. Per Drew Blaze’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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Blaze argued, “[a]bsent scope inflation and overinclusive searching, this request should be fulfillable within the statutory free search time or, at minimum, at a significantly reduced and reasonable cost consistent with M.G.L. c. 66 and 950 CMR 32.00.” Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames 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; (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.

Joyce Faria Brennan SPR26/0406 Page 6 February 24, 2026 Id. at 2. In light of the College’s fee estimate, where it has identified 13,750 potentially responsive emails, consisting of approximately 48,125 pages, this office encourages Mr. Blaze and the College to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Blaze may consider narrowing the scope of his 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 If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Blaze and the College communicate further as described above, Mr. Blaze may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Drew Blaze