Deibel, Paul v. Executive Office for Administration and Finance - Office of Information Technology (SPR 20150517)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords November 25, 2015 SPRlS/517 Ms. Michelle M. Burwell MassiT Legal Practice Manager Office of Information Technology One Ashburton Place, Room 804 Dear Ms. Burwell: I have received the petition of Paul Deibel appealing the response of the Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration and Finance-Office oflnformation Technology (MassiT) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Mr. Deibel requested records related to the employment of a specific person for a specific position at MassiT. Both before and subsequent to the opening of this appeal MassiT provided responsive records, withholding and redacting others as personnel records exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first clause ofExemption (c) ofthe Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c). While MassiT provided both a copy ofthe resume and job application for the applicant, work history was redacted from the job application. Mr. Deibel questions the reason for the redaction. Mr. Deibel also asks why the application was not signed by the applicant. Custodian not obligated to answer a question in response to a public records request Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. It is my understanding that MassiT has no record responsive to this question, and under the Public Records Law MassiT has no obligation to create a record in response to this question. Custodian provided resume but redacted work experience from job application As interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court, a records custodian is permitted to withhold a completed job application pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See Wakefield Teachers Ass'n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792 (2000). In response to Mr. Deibel's request, MassiT, in its discretion, provided portions of the application, withholding portions it deemed exempt pursuant to this exemption. I find this use of Exemption (c) was proper. The fact that MassiT simultaneously provided unredacted portions of the resume OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Ms. Michelle M. Burwell SPR15/517 Page Two November 25, 2015 containing similar information did not waive MassiT's right to redact the job application. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Conclusion I find MassiT provided responsive records, and has met its burden in the redaction of other records that form the basis of this administrative appe n uperv1sor of Records cc: Mr. Paul Deibel