Bachelor, Steven v. Holyoke Community College (SPR 20261271)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 10, 2026 SPR26/1271 Narayan Sampath Public Records Officer Holyoke Community College 303 Homestead Avenue Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Ms. Sampath: On April 7, 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, Dr. Steven J. Bachelor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). In multiple requests on March 24, 2026 and March 25, 2026, Dr. Bachelor requested the following: March 24th Request [1] Administrative Routing and Case Assignment Records for September 2025 complaint submitted by [an identified individual][;] [2] Record Retention Policies for Email and Administrative Records [3] The final version of the March 24, 2026 Board of Trustees meeting agenda as posted, distributed, or otherwise made available[;] [4] The Complete text used to describe any executive session item included on the March 24, 2026 agenda, including any last-minute additions[;] [5] Any version of the March 25, 2026 agenda reflecting [identified keywords]. March 25th Request [1] Determination of Disclosure status for December 8, 2025 Executive Session 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 SPR26/1271 Page 2 April 10, 2026 Minutes[;] [2] Certification of Search for Records Previously identified as Non-Existent for request submitted on 10/23/2025[.] Petition 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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the College requests “an extension of twenty (20) business days…” In support of its request the College provides the following information: In addition, Mr. Bachelor’s public records requests contain 6 separate requests, with multiple documents sought in each of the 6 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

Narayan Sampath SPR26/1271 Page 3 April 10, 2026 records requested, which involve Board of Trustees executive session minutes, emails and other documents that contain, for example, sensitive information, and 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 and examine the records, 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 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 (Supervisor) 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). 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 an agency’s petition to allow the agency to charge for time spent segregating or redacting 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 determination 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 agency 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; 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).

Narayan Sampath SPR26/1271 Page 4 April 10, 2026 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 under Exemption (a), 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, documents exempted under statute by necessary implication, 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. In light of the College’s petition, I find that the College has met its burden to explain

Narayan Sampath SPR26/1271 Page 5 April 10, 2026 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 Accordingly, I find that the College has established good cause for a time extension of 20 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as 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, Dr. 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: Dr. Steven J. Bachelor