Karina Wilkinson v. Middlesex County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20201759)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 5, 2020 SPR20/1759 Malav Patel Records Access Officer Middlesex Sheriff’s Office Legal Division 400 Mystic Avenue Medford, MA 02155 Dear Mr. Patel: I have received the petition of Karina Wilkinson appealing the nonresponse of the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office (MSO) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on June 22, 2020, Ms. Wilkinson requested “documents containing inmate calling service (ICS) provider phone rates and site commission percentage(s), as well as the current contract for inmate calling service in correctional facilities in the county” as well as “documents containing information on video visitation…” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of previous appeal. See SPR20/1383 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 27, 2020); SPR20/1383 Determination of the Supervisor of Records Reconsideration (August 27, 2020). In my August 27th determination, I found MSO intended on providing a supplemental response addressing the request. On September 15, 2020, MSO provided said response, which included the responsive records with the company names unredacted. Unsatisfied with MSO’s response, Ms. Wilkinson petitioned this office, and SPR20/1759, was opened as a result. Current Appeal In its original response on July 22nd, MSO indicated “…[c]ertain information has been redacted from this record pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7 cl. 26(c) which exempts ‘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[.]’ The information redacted includes banking information, personal contact information, tax identification numbers and other materials relating to specifically named individuals that would constitute an invasion of privacy if disclosed.” 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

SPR20/1759 Malav Patel Page 2 October 5, 2020 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 of Exemption (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 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). Second clause of Exemption (c) – privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017).

SPR20/1759 Malav Patel Page 3 October 5, 2020 The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; - se - e -al-so- -D-o-e -v.- R-e-g-is-tr-a-r -of- M--o-to-r -V-e-hi-c-le-s, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In her appeal, Ms. Wilkinson contends “I object to the redactions of the companies' addresses, contract manager name, email and telephone, as well as the printed name and signature at the bottom of the first page of each contract. No other MA county Records Access Officer I have worked with has ever redacted these items.” Based on MSO’s responses, I find MSO has not sufficiently explained how the companies' addresses, contract manager name, contact information, as well as the printed name and signature in the contracts are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c). Specifically, I find that MSO has not established how disclosing the redacted information "may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" in the manner described in PETA. ·

SPR20/1759 Malav Patel Page 4 October 5, 2020 Conclusion Accordingly, MSO is ordered to provide Ms. Wilkinson with a response in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. 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: Karina Wilkinson