Maurice J. Ornelas v. Bridgewater State University (SPR 20253023)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 28, 2025 SPR25/3023 Laura Machado Records Access Officer Office of the President Bridgewater State University 131 Summer Street Bridgewater, MA 02325 Dear Ms. Machado: I have received the petition of Dr. Maurice J. Ornelas appealing the response of Bridgewater State University (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 7, 2025, Dr. Ornelas requested the following records “related to the recent hiring process for [a specific] position at Bridgewater State University:” [1] The original job posting and full job description[;] [2] The evaluation criteria, scoring rubric, or selection matrix used by the search committee[;] [3] Completed evaluation forms, score sheets, or rankings compiled by committee members for this position[;] [4] Internal communications or memoranda reflecting the final hiring decision and selection rationale[;] [5] The list of standard interview questions used during candidate interviews[;] [6] Any publicly releasable documents reflecting the qualifications of the candidate selected for the position . . .[;] [7] Any documents, notes, or internal communications generated during the hiring process that specifically reference [an identified individual] . . . as a candidate for this position. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2541 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 9, 2025); SPR25/2591 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2025) and SPR25/2761 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 2, 2025). In my October 2nd determination, I ordered the University to clarify whether it 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 SPR25/3023 Page 2 October 28, 2025 possesses records responsive to Item 2 of the request for “[t]he evaluation criteria, scoring rubric, or selection matrix used by the search committee[.]” Subsequently, the University provided a response on October 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Dr. Ornelas petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3023, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The University’s October 14th Response In its previous response, the University provided clarification regarding the identity of records responsive to Item 2 of the request. It stated, “the University notes that, according to . . . [SPR5/2591], [Dr. Ornelas] [stated] . . . as follows: [‘]I am not requesting the individual score sheets or identifiable candidate feedback, but rather the general structure used to guide hiring decisions….[’] The University further advised, “[i]n view of this more circumscribed request, we must respond . . . by stating that the University has in its possession only [‘]individual score sheets[.][’]” The University additionally stated that it is “aware of no documents in the University’s possession providing [‘]the general structure used to guide hiring decisions[’] concerning this particular position search” and noted that “in light of the clarifications [Dr. Ornelas] provided” regarding Item 2 of his request, “the University has determined . . . that there are no records in the University’s possession that are responsive to” Item 2. In its October 14, 2025 response, the University again indicated that it “has no records responsive to [Item 2 of the] request.” The University stated that its position “is based on [Dr. Ornelas’] earlier clarification that [he is] [‘]not requesting the individual score sheets ... but rather the general structure used to guide hiring decisions[’]” and further confirmed, “[t]here are no records in our possession pertaining to the [‘]general structure used to guide hiring decisions.[’]”

Laura Machado SPR25/3023 Page 3 October 28, 2025 Current Appeal In his October 15, 2025 appeal petition, Dr. Ornelas again objects to the University’s response to Item 2 of his request. He contends, “[t]he response does not satisfy the requirement for a meaningful explanation and it leaves unresolved whether a rubric, matrix, or equivalent documentation exists.” Additionally, regarding Item 5 of his request for “[t]he list of standard interview questions used during candidate interviews[,]” Dr. Ornelas states, “[t]he prior determination permitted withholding of Item 5 under Exemption [(l)] because of potential reuse[.]” He claims that “[t]he position is now filled and the hiring cycle is closed” and requests that the Supervisor direct the University “either to release the interview questions used in this completed search or to provide a redacted version . . . .” Dr. Ornelas is advised that the request for records responsive to Item 5 of his request, and the University’s response concerning that Item of his request, was addressed in a separate appeal. See SPR25/2761 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 2, 2025). In my October 2nd determination I found that, where the University indicated that “[t]he interview questions are proprietary and are subject to re-use in future job searches, including job searches for the position in question[,]” the University may permissibly withhold records responsive to Item 5 of the request from disclosure under Exemption (l) of the Public Records Law (emphasis added). No Duty to Create Records The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Additionally, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for information extends only to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 4, § 10(a)(ii). In an email to this office on October 27, 2025, the University confirmed it does not possess records responsive to Item 2 of Dr. Ornelas’ request. Conclusion Where the University confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Item 2 of Dr. Ornelas’ request, and has no duty to create records responsive to Item 2 of his request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Dr. Ornelas is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G.

Laura Machado SPR25/3023 Page 4 October 28, 2025 L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dr. Maurice J. Ornelas