Stephen P. Knight v. Brockton, City of - Law Department (SPR 20160550)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords August 18, 2016 SPR16/550 Ms. Katherine M. Feodoroff, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Brockton Law Department Brockton City Hall 45 School Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Feodoroff: I have received the petition of Stephen Knight appealing the response of the City of Brockton-Law Department (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Knight requested "the settlement [a]greement between the City and [a specifically identified individual]." In a response dated June 16, 2016, the City denied his request, claiming that the responsive record is exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR 15/314 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 26, 2015; January 8, 2016; May 3, 2016). This appeal concerned Mr. Knight's request for the absentee records of a specifically identified individual as well as reasons for the absences, including the reasons for his administrative paid leave. The City determined it had three (3) potentially responsive records: (1) a Notification of Personnel Action Form; (2) an attendance calendar for fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015; and (3) an agreement by and between the City and the specifically named employee dated December 19, 2012. In my determination dated January 8, I found the City may withhold the Notification of Personnel Action Form and the agreement under the personnel clause of Exemption (c). I declined to reverse this finding in my May 3 determination. Subsequently, on June 16, 2016 Mr. Knight requested only "the settlement [a]greement between the City and [a specifically identified individual]." The June 16 request is the subject of this appeal. In Camera Inspection of Records Upon further consideration of Mr. Knight's petition, it is the finding of this office that an in camera review of an umedacted copy of the responsive agreement would facilitate a OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Katherine M. Feodoroff, Esq. SPR16/550 Page2 August 18, 2016 determination as to the applicability of any exemption claims made by the City. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). After I complete my review of the document, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6); see also G.L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.03 (defining "custodian" as the government employee who in the normal course of her duties has access to or control over records). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Accordingly, you are hereby ordered to provide this office with an unredacted copy of the responsive agreement without delay. The City may provide this office with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of an exemption to the responsive records. Please be advised that, unlike the materials provided for in camera review, any such additional correspondence would be placed in the file for this appeal and would be subject to public disclosure as a public record. cc: Mr. Stephen Knight