MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Heather Harding v. Foxboro, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20181731)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 11-20-2018

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20181731 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Heather Harding concerning records held by Foxboro, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 11-20-2018. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20181731
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Heather Harding
Custodian
Foxboro, Town of - Town Clerk
Date Opened
11-20-2018
Date Closed
12-05-2018
Date Request Submitted
11-12-2018
Processing Fees Charged
0.00
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Time to Comply
11 Business Days (12-20-18)
Went to Court
No

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records December 5, 2018 SPRlS/1731 Robert E. Cutler, Jr. Town Clerk Town of Foxborough 40 South Street Foxborough, MA 02035 Dear Mr. Cutler: I have received the petition of Heather Harding appealing the response of the Town of Foxborough (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, Ms. Harding requested a copy of an identified investigation report and a copy of an executive summary of the investigation report. The Town denied her request claiming the responsive records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c ) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(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(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); 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). 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Robert E. Cutler, Jr. SPR18/1731 Page 2 December 5, 2018 Exemption (c) Exemption (c ) permits the withholding of: 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. Massachusetts courts have found that "core categories of personnel information that are 'useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee"' may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). 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). Wakefield Teachers Ass'n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under the first clause. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). Nevertheless, there is a strong public interest in monitoring public expenditures and public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to public employment matters. See George W. Prescott Publishing Co. v. Register of Probate for Norfolk County, 395 Mass. 274,278 (1985); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 436 n.15. Further, the public has an interest in knowing whether public employees are "carrying out their duties in an efficient and law-abiding manner." Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 158 (1979). As a result, certain information that is considered personal in the ordinary sense of the word may be considered part of a public record if relating to an individual's official responsibilities. See Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 309 (1987). The Town indicates that the responsive records "are a personnel file record" and are being withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). However, the Town has not shown how the redacted information constitutes one of the "core categories of personnel information," such as an employment application, employee work evaluation, disciplinary documentation, or promotion or demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee, which may be properly withheld from disclosure under the personnel clause of Exemption (c). See Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 5; Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. As a result, I find that the Town did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. The Town is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption,

Robert E. Cutler, Jr. SPRlS/1731 Page 3 December 5, 2018 but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. Conclusion Given that the Town has not met its burden to explain how an exemption applies to the requested records, the requested records may not be withheld. Accordingly, the Town is ordered to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Ms. Harding with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. The Town may file a request for reconsideration of this determination within ten business days of the date of this determination letter. Sincerely, ~u~ Supervisor of Records cc: Heather Harding