Chrissy Ryan v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Districts (SPR 20192148)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

October 30, 2019 SPR19/2148

Debbie Westmoreland

Ambherst-Pelham Regional School District 170 Chestnut Street

Amherst, MA 01002

Dear Ms. Westmoreland:

I have received the petition of Chrissy Ryan appealing the response of the Amherst- Pelham Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically on September 11, 2019 Ms. Ryan requested the “Tpjersonnel file [of an identified individual] including job description associated with each role in each school, evaluations, salary associated with each role, all staff complains, grievances, legal action from regulatory bodies (DESE, OCR) legal settlements associated with JoAnn Smith for the last 6 years.” On September 25, 2019, the District provided Ms. Ryan a response. Unsatisfied with this response, Ms. Ryan petitioned this office and as a result SPR19/2148 was opened.

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, § 10A(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, § 10(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.

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

Debbie Westmoreland SPR19/2148 Page 2 October 30, 2019

Current Appeal

The District’s September 25" response states, “[t]he District asserts exemption with respect to the records responsive to [Ms. Ryan’s] request under MGL c. 4, 7(26), exemption (c) ‘personal files and information.”

In her appeal to this office dated October 17, 2019 Ms. Ryan states, “I would like to contest this response. The law states personnel files are not exempt in totality and it can be a case by case basis. In this case, there has been a high volume of complaints and negligence by this employee and the ARPS Administration is not holding her accountable.”

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. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that a records custodian may withhold from disclosure as personnel information records containing information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee.” Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have 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). Asa 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).

Debbie Westmoreland SPR19/2148 Page 3 October 30, 2019

Specificity The Public Records Law states that “the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with

specificity the exemption which applies.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv)(emphasis added); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511.

I find that the District’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the District’s response merely cites Exemption (c) without any further explanation as to the exemption’s applicability to the requested records.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Ryan with a supplemental response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations 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.

Lallenen

olecea S. Murray Supervisor of Records

ec: Chrissy Ryan