Burns, Hilary v. Cape Cod Community College (SPR 20261398)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 22, 2026 SPR26/1398 Patrick Stone Records Access Officer Cape Cod Community College 2240 Lyannough Road Barnstable, MA 02668 Dear Mr. Stone: On April 15, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of Cape Cod Community College (College) seeking 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, Hilary Burns. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 9, 2026, Ms. Burns requested, “a copy of any final report, findings, or summary generated as a result of any investigation into the conduct of [an identified individual].” 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. 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 SPR26/1398 Page 2 April 22, 2026 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 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 Exemptions (c) and (f): Some of the potentially responsive documents may fall under M.G.L. Chapter 4, Section 7(26) exemptions including (a), (c), and (f) as well as protections related to open meeting law executive sessions, privacy and attorney-client privilege. 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).

Patrick Stone SPR26/1398 Page 3 April 22, 2026 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, 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, Ms. Burns 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: Hilary Burns