Patrick N. Bryant v. Burlington, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20160686)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords September 16, 2016 SPR16/686 Ms. Michelle E. Randazzo, Esq. KP Law, P.C. 101 Arch Street, 1ih Floor Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Randazzo: I have received the petition of Patrick Bryant, Esq. of Pyle Rome Ehrenberg, P.C., Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts Veteran's Edge (MVE) seeking further consideration of your June 9, 2016 written response, as Legal Counsel for the Town of Burlington (Town) in compliance with my previous written determination regarding Attorney Bryant's request for public records. See SPR16/311 Determination ofthe Supervisor of Records (May 27, 2016). Specifically, MVE requested nine (9) categories of records related to veteran's employment in the Town. The Town provided records, redacting some information such as social security numbers, personal email addresses, ethnicity and veteran's status pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Town also withheld the names of applicants who were screened out at a preliminary stage pursuant to Exemption (c). Attorney Bryant petitioned this office regarding the redacted and withheld information, and an appeal was opened. Previous determination - SPR16/311 In my May 27, 2016 determination, I closed the appeal with the proviso that the Town provide Attorney Bryant with another written response to clarify its redaction of ethnicity and veteran's status, and what information was provided in response to the original request. On June 9, 2016, the Town provided Attorney Bryant with a written response along with another copy of the records with the veteran's status and ethnicity un-redacted from this copy of the records. Additionally in your June 9 response, you detailed what records were provided in response to each of the nine (9) categories of records originally requested. The Town provided this office with a copy of the June 9 response and the records. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Michelle E. Randazzo, Esq. SPR16/686 Page 2 September 16, 2016 New Request-June 10, 2016 On June 10, after Attorney Bryant's receipt of the June 9 response and requested records, he sent a letter to your attention requesting that the Town provide him with further information. Specifically, he requested: 1. Information in Attachment 3 with names, ethnicity, gender and veteran's status in order ofs core, without listing the score, 2. In the multi-color chart, the identities of all candidates interviewed by a panel, as the Town provides the names of some, but not all candidates, and 3. Identify the meaning of the light-blue shading (Allston White Female). On June 27, upon your return to your office, you responded to Attorney Bryant's request and inquiries. While the Town is not required under the Public Records Law to answer questions, provide analysis or conduct research in response to Attorney Bryant's inquiries, you did provide an explanation concerning his inquiries Number 2 and Number 3. You also informed Attorney Bryant that it is not obligated to create new documents in order to respond to any such questions Basis of the present appeal-SPR16/686 In his August 19 letter, Attorney Bryant asks this office to direct the Town to provide a document in response to his Request 1, and to reverse my determination and direct the Town to provide him with all the names of the candidates interviewed by a panel that the Town has claimed were not semi-finalists. Please be advised, a records custodian is under no obligation to create a record, conduct research or analysis or provide answers to questions. It is my understanding that the Town provided the responsive records in the format that it has, and I find that the Town is not obligated to create a record in order to rank the information "in order of score." On May 27, 2016, I found that the Town may withhold the names (identities) of applicants who have not reached the status of"semi-finalists" pursuant to the privacy clause of Exemption (c). Attorney Bryant seeks reconsideration. In your June 10 response, you again explained the Town's employment application (interview) process. It is my understanding that Town un-redacted the names of certain individuals from the lists of candidates provided to Attorney Bryant. Those individuals either passed the screening interview and were forwarded to the Town Administrator to be interviewed by the Town Administrator, John Petrin, or were considered for hire even without initially being forwarded to Mr. Petrin. It is these candidates who were screened out of the initial process who are considered "semi-finalists" for the positions, and are the pool of applicants from which an

Michelle E. Randazzo, Esq. SPR16/686 Page 3 September 16, 2016 individual or individuals will be selected for the job. Therefore, I affirm my May 27 determination that the Town has properly claimed Exemption (c) on those individuals who have not reached this "semi-finalist" status. Conclusion Accordingly, I decline to reverse my prior determination regarding the names of individual applicants who have not become "semi-finalists" pursuant to the privacy clause of Exemption (c) ofthePublic Records Law. Further, I find that the Town is under no obligation to create any records or documents in response to Attorney Bryant's June 10, 2016 Request 1, and find that the Town is in compliance with my May 27, 2016 determination, the Public Records Law and Regulations. This administrative appeal remains closed. Attorney Bryant is advised that if he is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). cc: Mr. Patrick N. Bryant, Esq. Mr. John D. Petrin, Town Administrator