Amy Friedman v. Malden City Clerk's Office (SPR 20201797)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 8, 2020 SPR20/1797 Greg Lucey City Clerk City of Malden 110 Pleasant Street, First Floor Malden, MA 02148 Dear Mr. Lucey: I have received the petition of Bruce Friedman appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 24, 2020, Mr. Friedman requested “. . . the entire contents of [an identified individual’s] public employee file including but not limited to his letter of resignation.” Previous appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/1629 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 22, 2020). SPR20/1629 was closed after this office learned that the City had provided Mr. Friedman with a response on September 10, 2020. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Friedman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1797, 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, § 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 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

Greg Lucey SPR20/1797 Page 2 October 8, 2020 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, § 10(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 September 10th response In its September 10, 2020 response, the City indicates that it declines to provide records to Mr. Freidman’s request. Citing the language of Exemption (c), the City explains that “[s]ince your request seeks the disclosure of [the identified individual’s] personnel file, your request falls under the exemption of MGL c. 4, sec. 7, clause 26(c); and the [City] accordingly declines to produce the personnel file that you seek.” 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). 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

Greg Lucey SPR20/1797 Page 3 October 8, 2020 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). Based on the City’s response, although records may potentially fall under the first clause of Exemption (c) as personnel records, it is unclear the type(s) of records the City possesses. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Further, the City is advised that the term personnel file or information “is not limited to nor does it extend to, all ‘files or information’ that are located physically in an individual employee’s personnel file.” Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 797 n. 13; see also Globe Newspaper Co., - - - - 388 Mass. at 435 (not every bit of information which might be found in a personnel or medical file is necessarily personal so as to fall within the exemption’s protection); Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 5 (personnel file or information in Exemption (c) derives its meaning from the nature or character of the document, not from its label or its repository). Therefore, a custodian’s designation of materials as personnel file or information is not dispositive. Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 5-6. As a result, I find the City must identify the records it possesses and explain how each record constitutes one of the “core categories of personnel information,” such as an employment application, employee work evaluation, disciplinary documentation, or promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee, which may be properly withheld from disclosure under the first clause of Exemption (c). See id. at 5; Wakefield, 431 -- - Mass. at 798. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Friedman with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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: Bruce Friedman