McNally, Martin v. Roxbury Community College (SPR 20261417)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 17, 2026 SPR26/1417 Jordan Emily Smock Associate Vice President & Records Access Officer Roxbury Community College 1234 Columbus Avenue Boston, MA 02120 Dear Ms. Smock: On April 15, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of Roxbury 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, I understand that the College furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Martin McNally. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 1, 2026, Mr. McNally requested: …records sufficient to show all complaints – whether formal grievances or informal documented reports – filed against [three identified individuals] while employed by or otherwise affiliated with Roxbury Community College between January 1, 2024, and January 30, 2026. For each complaint identified, I am seeking only the following specific information: [1] The type of allegation and summary [2] The date or approximate timeframe [3] The outcome or resolution This request encompasses all complaints made by students or staff, including those filed through external agencies such as, but not limited to, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). 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

Jordan Emily Smock SPR26/1417 Page 2 April 17, 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: The 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 includes investigative reports and findings related to formal or informal complaints made against the three named executives, materials reflecting disciplinary determinations or recommended actions, and communications transmitting or summarizing findings to senior officials or trustees, requires that each record be carefully reviewed to ensure that production of documentation 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

Jordan Emily Smock SPR26/1417 Page 3 April 17, 2026 Board Chair and 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. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you grant the College an extension of twenty (20) business days from the date of the grant of an extension by the Supervisor of Records, consistent with 950 CMR 32.06(4)(d) and (e). Based on the information provided in the College’s petition, I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate, and examine the records and the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, in conjunction with the capacity of the College to produce the request 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 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). 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).

Jordan Emily Smock SPR26/1417 Page 4 April 17, 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 to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege, the College argued the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f): We submit this petition to request approval to charge for segregation and redaction of potentially responsive records that may fall within exemptions of the public records law including but not limited to (a), (c), and (f) and open meeting law, and the attorney client privilege, and, as such approval is required per G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 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. Further, in an accompanying response and fee estimate provided to Mr. McNally and this office, the College explained: Exemption (c): …disclosure could inadvertently reveal private details about individuals who are not the subject of the request and thus constitute an

Jordan Emily Smock SPR26/1417 Page 5 April 17, 2026 unwarranted invasion of personal privacy especially where these individuals were part of a process that was supposed to be confidential. Exemption (f): Exemption (f) permits the withholding of records that contain investigative materials that are “necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials” when disclosure would not be in the public interest will need to be withheld. Such records may result from an investigation under the Policy on Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity & Diversity and/or by human 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, 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. This office encourages Mr. McNally and the College to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the College must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Please note, Mr. McNally 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: Martin McNally