Rehoboth WikiLeaks v. Dighton-Rehoboth Regional School District (SPR 20211697)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 20, 2021 SPR21/1697 Paul Kitchen District Records Access Officer Dighton-Rehoboth Regional School District 2700 Regional Road North Dighton, MA 02764 Dear Mr. Kitchen: I have received the petition of Rehoboth WikiLeaks appealing the response of the Dighton-Rehoboth Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 10, 2021, WikiLeaks requested, “…the resignation letters submitted by [named persons]. We request all copies of the documents requested be provided to us in electronic format.” On June 22, 2021, the District responded. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, WikiLeaks appealed and SPR21/1697 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(d)(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 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). 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

Paul Kitchen SPR21/1697 Page 2 July 20, 2021 The District’s June 22nd response In its June 22nd response, the District cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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 Exemption (c). Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Analysis under 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. 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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 its June 22nd response, the District informed WikiLeaks “[a]s your request for [named person’s] letter, that information has not been shared at the time of your public records request,

Paul Kitchen SPR21/1697 Page 3 July 20, 2021 but has filed in his personnel file.” The District further stated “…Exemption (c), is the privacy exemption. The language of the exemption limits its application 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.” Based on the District’s response, it is unclear how the resignation letters are intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the District did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. As a result, I find that the District did not satisfy its burden in withholding these records pursuant to Exemption (c). Order Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide WikiLeaks with a 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. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Rehoboth WikiLeaks