Matthew Rocheleau v. Bridgewater State University - Office of the President (SPR 20210991)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 4, 2021 SPR21/0991 Laura Machado Staff Associate and Public Information Officer Office of the President Bridgewater State University 131 Summer Street Bridgewater, MA 02325 Dear Ms. Machado: I have received the petition of Matthew Rocheleau of the Boston Globe appealing the response of the Bridgewater State University (University) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 26, 2021, Mr. Rocheleau requested “[a]ny/all disclosures of immediate family working in Massachusetts state government that were made by individuals who applied for employment as adjunct professors with Bridgewater State University between Jan. 1, 2015 and present.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR21/0786 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 12, 2021). In my April 12th determination, I found the University’s fee estimate had not explained with specificity why the indicated amount of time is necessary to produce the requested records. The University was ordered to provide Mr. Rocheleau with a revised response, in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The University provided said response on April 16, 2021. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Mr. Rocheleau petitioned this office and SPR21/0991 was opened as a result. Fee estimate - 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 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

Laura Machado SPR21/0991 Page 2 May 4, 2021 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. 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 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). Current Appeal In its April 16, 2021 response, the University states “…the hourly rate being assessed is that of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skill required to produce the responsive records…the lowest hourly rate of the staff in the Human Resources Office is $26.32…BSU did not use this hourly rate but rather…$25 per hour.” The University indicates “Bridgewater State University (BSU) utilizes an applicant tracking system to advertise positions available for employment. Applicants apply for positions through this system…in 2016, the applicant tracking system was upgraded by the vendor. Applicant and candidate data in the applicant tracking system pre-2016 is electronically stored by the vendor.” The University further indicates “[t]he vendor provided BSU with a cost estimate of $9,000 to gain access to the requested data from 2015 - early 2016. Upon receipt of that cost estimate, BSU determined it would undertake a manual extraction of the requested information for the 2015 - early 2016 time period.” The University explains “[t]he requested data from early 2016 -present can be extracted electronically using the reporting feature housed within the applicant tracking system. BSU also intends to review the report generated to ensure accurate information was captured. To do this, a report will be generated through the payroll system by hire date and cross-referenced with the electronic extraction of data through the applicant tracking system’s reporting function.” The University further explains “[t]he manual extraction process will also require producing a report from the payroll system by hire date. The employee performing this work will then manually review personnel files to locate the employment application. The manual review of official personnel files may vary in time depending upon the number of documents maintained in the personnel file. In addition, some employees at BSU are unionized employees whose terms and conditions of employment are governed by collective bargaining Agreements...[a]fter reviewing the documents in the personnel file, the employee performing this work will need to ensure the personnel file is returned to proper order in accordance with the requisite collective bargaining agreement, if applicable. After locating the employment application, the employee performing this work will read the application for the Sunshine Disclosure question. If answered in the affirmative, the employee will log the appropriate information on a spreadsheet to prepare a report of the requested data.” Despite its response, the University’s fee estimate has not explained with specificity why

Laura Machado SPR21/0991 Page 3 May 4, 2021 the indicated amount of time is necessary to produce the requested records. Specifically, it is unclear the amount of time being allotted to each task. Further, the University indicates in its response “[a]pplicant and candidate data in the applicant tracking system pre-2016 is electronically stored by the vendor…” Please be advised that the University cannot charge a requestor for the time it takes to search for responsive records based on the organization and management of its records. Public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a); see G. L. c. 66, § l2; see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of - - - - Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). This office encourages Mr. Rocheleau and the University to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, §10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification of 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 fee estimate by the University must be in compliance with this determination, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Order Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide Mr. Rocheleau with a revised response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Rocheleau