Crowley, Daniel v. Northampton Police Department (SPR 20140195)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 27,2014 SPR14/195 Mr. Daniel J. Crowley The Daily Hampshire Gazette 115 Conz Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Mr. Crowley: This office has received your petition appealing the response of the Northampton Police Department (Department) to your request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). Specifically, you requested copies of internal investigatory records relating to a specifically identified investigation involving two Department employees. In response to your request, Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz stated that the Department was withholding records responsive to this request pursuant to Exemption (f) and the second clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In a May 14, 2014 letter to you, a copy of which was provided to this office, City Solicitor Alan Seewald supplemented the Department's original response by stating that records responsive to your request are considered personnel records and are also exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). The applicability of the personnel exemption is first considered. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. Daniel J. Crowley SPR14/195 Page Two May 27,2014 This exemption contains two distinct and independent clauses, each requiring its own analysis. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432-33 (1983). The first clause creates a categorical exemption for personnel and medical information. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee ofWakefield, 431 Mass. 792,798 (2000). The core categories of personnel information include employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). In his May 14th letter, City Solicitor Seewald stated that the Department conducted a singular investigation that "involved both a law enforcement officer and a civilian employee." The Appeals Court of Massachusetts has previously held that separate treatment is required for records otherwise considered personnel in nature, but only for those records specific to a law enforcement internal affairs investigation of an officer. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 12 (2003) (a citizenry's full and fair assessment of a police department's internal investigation of its officers' actions promotes the core value of trust between citizens and police essential to law enforcement and the protection of constitutional rights). The Worcester decision does not extend the applicability of this treatment to non-police related personnel investigations. In a telephone conversation with an attorney on my staff, City Solicitor Seewald stated that responsive records cannot be disclosed, even in redacted form, in a manner that would protect the personnel information related to the civilian employee. The Department considers this information personnel in nature as it relates to a disciplinary matter and falls within the categories of information that the first clause of Exemption (c) is designed to protect. The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). It is my finding that the Department has satisfied its burden in showing that records responsive to your request may be permissibly withheld pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). The fact that certain information relating to the law enforcement officer may, on its own, be subject to disclosure does not limit the Department in exercising its discretion to withhold these records in order to protect personnel information considered exempt from disclosure. Whereas the Department may permissibly withhold responsive records pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c), an analysis as to the applicability of the second clause of

Mr. Daniel J. Crowley SPR14/195 Page Three May27, 2014 Exemption (c) as well as Exemption (f) is not required. Accordingly, this administrative appeal is closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Alan Seewald, Esq. Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz