MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

David Adamson v. Northampton, City of - Housing Authority (SPR 20160417)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 06-17-2016

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20160417 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by David Adamson concerning records held by Northampton, City of - Housing Authority, opened 06-17-2016. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20160417
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
David Adamson
Custodian
Northampton, City of - Housing Authority
Date Opened
06-17-2016
Date Closed
06-30-2016

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords June 30, 2016 SPR16/417 Ms. Cara Clifford, Executive Director Northampton Housing Authority 49 Old South Street Northampton, MA 01 060 Dear Ms. Clifford: I have received the petition of David Adamson appealing the response of the Northampton Housing Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lO(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Adamson requested copies of phone bills for devices provided by the Authority to Authority employees. You denied his request in its entirety, claiming disclosure would provide "personal tenant data." See G. L. c. 66A § 1; G.L. c. 66A § 2; and 760 C.M.R. 8. 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, § lO(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, § lO(c); see also District 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. The Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA) The Authority cited sections from the Fair Information Practices Act (FIP A) to support withholding the entirety of the responsive records. FIP A imposes restrictions on the dissemination of "personal data." G. L. c. 66a, § 2(c ). "Personal data" is defined to include: OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/p re

Ms. Cara Clifford SPR16/417 Page 2 June 30, 2016 any information concerning an individual which, because of name, identifying number, mark or description can be readily associated with a particular individual; provided, however, that such information is not contained in a public record, as defined in clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four and shall not include intelligence informatio)l, evaluative information or criminal offender record information as defined in section one hundred and sixty-seven of chapter SIX. G. L. c. 66A, §1 The definition of "personal data" contained in FIP A expressly excludes information contained in a public record. G. L. c. 66A, § 1. FIP A and the Public Records Law are to be construed to work together consistent with the legislative purpose. 32 Op. Atty Gen. Mass. 157, 160 (May 18, 1977). Accordingly, FIP A may only be asserted to withhold records in conjunction with a specifically identified exemption. The Authority claimed no other exemption to support its claim that Authority employee telephone records be withheld in their entirety. The Authority, therefore, has failed to meet its burden of explaining with specificity how the records in their entirety are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 3 78 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a). Order I find the Authority has failed to state with specificity the applicability of an exemption to permit nondisclosure of a public record. Accordingly, the Authority is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Adamson a revised written response to his request for records, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, its Regulations and other applicable law. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It i preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. cc: Mr. David Adamson