Bachelor, Steven v. Holyoke Community College (SPR 20261159)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 6, 2026 SPR26/1159 Narayan Sampath Records Access Officer Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Mr. Sampath: On March 30, 2026, 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, Steven Bachelor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). Between December 4, 2025 and December 7, 2025, Mr. Bachelor submitted twenty-three (23) requests for various categories of “administrative operational records associated with complaint intake, investigation management, and investigative report handling . . . .” 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 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 SPR26/1159 Page 2 April 6, 2026 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 to produce records and provides the following in support of its request: Mr. Bachelor’s public records requests contain 23 separate requests, with multiple documents sought in each of the 23 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 metadata, 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. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure and the capacity of the College to produce the records without an extension, the College has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). 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).

Narayan Sampath SPR26/1159 Page 3 April 6, 2026 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) at a rate of $25.00 per hour: Employee files may contain documents that have references to accommodation requests, employee assistance program references or records, and other materials

Narayan Sampath SPR26/1159 Page 4 April 6, 2026 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. In light of the College 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion As described above, I find that the College has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days. 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. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the College to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Bachelor 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: Steven Bachelor