Clark, Richard v. Cape Cod Community College (SPR 20261378)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 16, 2026 SPR26/1378 Patrick Stone Records Access Officer Cape Cod Community College 2240 Iyannough Road West Barnstable, MA 02668 Dear Mr. Stone: On April 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of Cape Cod 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, Richard Clark. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 31, 2026, Mr. Clark requested: . . . the following records related to the decision to place [an identified individual] on administrative leave on or about October 23, 2025: 1. Agendas, motions, and any non-exempt portions of minutes (including executive session minutes, if segregable) from Board of Trustees meetings in October and November 2025 where this matter was discussed. 2. Any written reports, summaries, or briefing materials provided to the Board of Trustees concerning this action. 3. Contracts, engagement letters, or invoices for any external investigators, law firms, or consultants retained in connection with this matter. 4. Any final determination letters, separation agreements, or settlement agreements related to [an identified individual’s] leave, resignation, or retirement. 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 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

Patrick Stone SPR26/1378 Page 2 April 16, 2026 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: Mr. Clark’s public records request 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) including but not limited to (a), (c), and (f), and the attorney client-privilege. The nature of the records requested, which include documents related to the paid administrative leave of a College president since on or about October 23, 2025 and Board communications and meetings, including written reports, summaries, or briefing materials provided to the Board of Trustees, agendas, motions, and minutes from Board meetings, as well as items that may be contained in personnel files, requires that each record be carefully reviewed to ensure that production of the document is lawful. The compilation, review, segregation and anticipated redaction of said documents which could total in the hundreds if not thousands of pages, will require the engagement of several key confidential administrators as well as the College’s Board Chair and

Patrick Stone SPR26/1378 Page 3 April 16, 2026 General Counsel who where appropriate will also need to create a privilege log. 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 (10th) business day following its receipt as required by the law. I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate, and examine the records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, and the capacity of the College to produce the records 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 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). 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

Patrick Stone SPR26/1378 Page 4 April 16, 2026 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) of the Public Records Law and the attorney-client privilege, the College argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): The categories of documents may include documents exempted under statute by specific as well as necessary implication, such as Open Meeting Law, FERPA, ADA, PII, personnel records, or other sensitive protected information. These exemptions require careful review to ensure that any personnel or student information is properly identified and redacted before disclosure especially noting that disclosure could inadvertently reveal private details about individuals who are not the subject of the request, necessitating thorough review and appropriate redaction before release. 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). Please note that the College issued a written response to Mr. Clark on April 13, 2026, and a fee estimate was also provided, as the College awaits the determination of this fee petition. A copy of the response and fee estimate are provided along with this request, and we ask are incorporated by reference including rationale for this request. In its April 13th fee estimate, the College provides additional rationale to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): Exemption (c)[:] . . . Further, disclosure could inadvertently reveal private details about individuals who are not the subject of the request and thus constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy especially where these individuals were part of a process that was supposed to be confidential. Exemption (f)[:] . . . Such records may result from an investigation under the Policy on Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity & Diversity and/or by human

Patrick Stone SPR26/1378 Page 5 April 16, 2026 resources) not only related to the nature of the investigation itself but also to the witnesses and parties. 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, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the College may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Mr. Clark is advised that the requestor may appeal the College’s fee estimate within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Mr. Clark 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: Richard Clark