Ronald Alexander v. Natick, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20190702)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords April 18, 2019 SPR19/0702 Timothy Luff Assistant Superintendent Office of Student Services Natick Public Schools 13 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Mr. Luff: I have received the petition of Ronald Alexander appealing the response of the Town of Natick Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Alexander requested all attendance records for the Superintendent for the Calendar year 201 7. The School provided Mr. Alexander with a response on February 27, 2019 citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the School's response, Mr. Alexander appealed to this office on April 3, 2019. 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. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv). If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § lO(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

Mr. Timothy Luff SPR19/0702 Page 2 April 18, 2019 Appeal In the School's February 2ih response it explained that the "[t]hose records are being withheld under exemption C of the public records law, specifically as they are part of [Superintendent's] personnel file." The School states that "[g]iven this is part of a previous request, please note my response to you dated 2/12/19 in which you ask for his complete personnel file." 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). First clause 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 Publ'g Co. v. Register of Probate for Norfolk Cnty., 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 ifrelating to an individual's official responsibilities. See Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306,309 (1987).

Mr. Timothy Luff SPR19/0702 Page 3 April 18, 2019 The Supreme Judicial Court has held that attendance records of public employees are public. Brogan, 401 Mass. at 309. In Brogan, the Court noted that "the dates and generic classifications, e.g. 'sick day,' 'personal day,' etc ... are "not 'intimate details' of a 'highly personal' nature,' the kind of private facts that the Legislature intended to exempt from mandatory disclosure." Brogan, 410 Mass. at 308. Burden of specificity; duty to segregate Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The School did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the responsive records, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein V: Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The School must produce any non-exempt, segregable portions of the public records. G. L. c. 66, § IO(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to review the requested records, redact if necessary and provide Mr. Alexander with the responsive records, in accordance with the Public Records Law, its Access Regulations and this order within 10 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: Ronald Alexander