Simpson, Neal v. Braintree, Town of (SPR 20140227)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 9, 2014 SPR14/227 Mr. Peter J. Morin, Esq. Town ofBraintree One JFK Memorial Drive Braintree, MA 02184 Dear Town Solicitor Morin: This office has received the petition of Neal Simpson of The Patriot Ledger appealing your response for the Town of Braintree (Town) to his March 20, 2014 request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). Specifically, Mr. Simpson requested a copy of the separation agreement dated March 7, 2014 that was executed between the Town and a specifically identified employee. Exemption (c) In a March 31, 2014letter to Mr. Simpson, you stated that the Town was withholding the responsive record as a personnel record pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). The exemption applies to: personnel and medical files or infom1ation; 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) 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 infom1ation. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee ofWakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The core categories of personnel infonnation include employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee. Id. These categories of OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Mr. Peter J. Morin, Esq. SPR14/227 Page Two May 9, 2014 personnel information are considered useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee and are exempt from disclosure. Id. A 2013 Superior Court decision provides further guidance with respect to the public nature of separation, severance, transition or settlement agreements, as well as the types of personnel information included within such agreements that may be exempt from disclosure. See Globe Newspaper Company, Inc. v. Executive Office of Administration and Finance, et al, Suffolk Superior Court Civil Action No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013), 34-35. The parties in the above-captioned matter agreed to refrain from further appeal via a letter agreement dated December 17, 2013. In the Globe decision, the court held that records of separation, severance, transition or settlement agreements are considered public records subject to mandatory disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Law (G.L. c. 66, § 10). While the Globe decision may permit the Town to redact certain information included within the record as personnel information, the decision does not permit the Town to withhold the responsive record in its entirety pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). The Town is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Simpson with a copy of the responsive record. If the Town intends to redact certain information from the responsive record, it is reminded that it holds the burden of proving 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). Whereas the Town has been ordered to provide a copy of the responsive record, this administrative appeal is closed. Shawn A. Williams Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Neal Simpson