Saklad, Don Kempner Warner v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20150560)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords December 7, 20 15 SPRlS/560 Mr. Arthur J. Goldberg, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Cambridge Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts A venue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Attorney Goldberg: I have received the petition of Don Warner Saklad appealing the response of the City of Cambridge Office of the City Solicitor (City) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Saklad requested all names submitted to the City for a position on the City's Library Board (Board). In an email dated July 2, 2015, the City denied Mr. Saklad's request pursuant to both clauses of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Mr. Saklad appealed that denial. The City provided additional written responses subsequent to the opening of this appeal on August 28, 2015 and December 4, 2015. The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(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 town 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, § 1 0( c); 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). Exemption (c) In an August 28, 2015 letter to this office, on which Mr. Saklad was copied via email, you explained that the records responsive to Mr. Saklad's request are exempt pursuant to OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. Arthur J. Goldberg, Esq. SPR15/560 Page Two December 7, 2015 Exemption (c) as "application information that falls within the ambit of personnel information." 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) Exemption (c) 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 information that relates to an identifiable individual and is of a "personal nature." Id. at 434. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that a records custodian may withhold from disclosure as personnel information records containing information that is "useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee." Wakefield Teachers Ass'n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). For example, "employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee," may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). Id. I find that your August 28 letter satisfies the obligation of specificity under the Public Records Law. By stating that the responsive records consist of"application information," you met the burden outlined above. You further meet this burden in your December 4 email to an attorney on my staff. In this email you explained that "30 applications were received. The City Manager delegated to the Library Director and her assistant the task of choosing applicants to interview." You explained that the Library Director forwarded the top two or three candidates to the City Manager. The final selection was made by the City Manager, and not the Board. Accordingly, whereas the applicants were reviewed by the City Manager and the Library Director, and further, whereas the records consist of "applicant information" exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c), I find the City acted within its discretion in withholding the responsive "application information." I therefore decline to opine upon any other exemptions cited by the City. This administrative a ea is c osed. cc: Mr. Don Warner Saklad