Laura Crimaldi v. Springfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20190051)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 18, 2019 SPR19/0051 Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. City Clerk City of Springfield 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Wilson: I have received the petition of Laura Crimaldi of the Boston Globe appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 18, 2018, Ms. Crimaldi requested the following records: "• any and all internal affairs, including officer's reports, witness interview summaries, and the internal affairs reports itselfregarding [five identified individuals]. • any and all resumes maintained by the City of Springfield for [the identified individuals]. • any and all records pertaining to changes in duty status for [the identified individuals]. • Any and all records pertaining to the end of [ an identified individual's] employment with the Springfield Police Department." Previous appeals The requested record was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR18/l 149 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 15, 2018); SPRl 8/1340 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 19, 2018); and SPR18/1685 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 28, 2018). In my November 28th determination, I found that the City had not met its burden to withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemption ( c) of the Public Records Law. As such, I ordered the City to provide Ms. Crimaldi with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. 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

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. SPR19/0051 Page2 January 18, 2019 Following the November 28th determination, the City, in a response dated December 13, 2018, provides additional information in support of its position to redact and withhold certain records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the City's response, Ms. Crimaldi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR19/0051, was opened as a result. 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, § 1O (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, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City's December Ii11 response In lts December 13, 2018 response, with respect to the Disposition sections of the records, the City states that it redacted these sections from the records because they are personnel information. The City explains that "[t]he Disposition and Final Disposition sections of the histories were redacted because this information is used to decide disciplinary charges against the officers up to and including termination." With respect to records pertaining to the end of employment of a named employee, the "departmental and inter-departmental memorandum# 17-189 ," the City states that it believes that the requested record is exempt from disclosure under the first clause of Exemption ( c) because "[t]he requested document is [the named employee's] letter of resignation." Exemption (c) The City claims it withheld responsive records pursuant to Exemption ( c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption ( c) permits the withholding of:

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. SPR19/0051 Page 3 January 18, 2019 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). First clause ofE xemption (c) - personnel 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, relevant to this appeal, 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' maybe 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). 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 Westp01i, 401 Mass. 306, 309 (1987). Records pertaining to the end ofe mployment ofa named employee Although public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy in matters relating to their official responsibilities, some information concerning a public employee's employment has been found to be sufficiently personal to be exempt from mandatory disclosure. In Wakefield, the Court found that at a minimum, personnel information includes, "employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee." Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. The Court concluded that these pieces of information "constitute the core categories of personnel information that are useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee and may be properly withheld from disclosure under Exemption (c)." Id. at 798-99. Consequently, whereas the "departmental and inter-departmental memorandum #17-189" concerns the named

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. SPR19/0051 Page4 January 18, 2019 employee's termination information, which was determined to be exempt as personnel in Wakefield, I find the City acted properly in withholding the requested record from disclosure. Disposition and Final Disposition sections ofJ IU histories Please note that the courts have contrasted the public status of disciplinary investigation materials of law enforcement personnel from the "ordinary evaluations, performance assessments, and disciplinary determinations" included in the public records exemption for "personnel [file] or information" or other public employees due to the significance of maintaining the transparency of the police department's internal affairs process. Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 2. Consequently, based on the City's response, it remains unclear if the "Disposition and Final Disposition sections" are part of an Internal Affairs investigation file, thereby making it exempt from the personnel clause of Exemption ( c) as contemplated in Worcester. The City must clarify this matter. I understand a Public Records Division staff attorney contacted your office about this appeal but was unable to reach you prior to the issuance of this decision. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Crimaldi with a response to the request, 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. Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Crimaldi