Anthony Sorcinelli v. West Springfield, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20201873)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 15, 2020 SPR20/1873 Kate R. O’Brien, Esq. Town Attorney Town of West Springfield 26 Central Street, Suite 32 West Springfield, MA 01089 Dear Attorney O’Brien: I have received the petition of Antonio Sorcinelli appealing the response of the Town of West Springfield (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Sorcinelli requested: “Superintendent Connor’s email list that is commonly used for school related announcements. I would [imagine] that this list is in some kind of CSV file and I would prefer the list in that form via email.” In an October 1, 2020 letter, the Town denied Mr. Sorcinelli’s request in its entirety pursuant to the second clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Sorcinelli petitioned the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor), and this appeal was opened. As the basis for his appeal, Mr. Sorcinelli quotes from the Guide to the Public Records Law, Page 9, “[p]ublic records, including emails made or received in an individual’s capacity as a government employee, must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request.” 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) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific 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

Kate R. O’Brien, Esq. SPR20/1873 Page 2 October 15, 2020 exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 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). Exemption (c) – privacy clause As the Town relies on Exemption (c) to withhold the responsive email addresses, this exemption merits consideration. Exemption (c) applies to: 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). Second clause of (c) 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). 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; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 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

Kate R. O’Brien, Esq. SPR20/1873 Page 3 October 15, 2020 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 its response, the Town asserts, “…private citizens whose emails are unpublished have an expectation of privacy…the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh their individual rights to privacy.” This office has held that personal email addresses of private citizens is of the type of information that is not generally available through other public sources. I find that such treatment of personal email addresses favors a finding of non-disclosure. Because these email addresses are for private citizens; in this case, I see no compelling public interest in favor of disclosure that would outweigh the privacy interests of these private citizens. Conclusion Given that I find the Town has met its burden in responding to this request, I will consider this appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Antonio Sorcinelli