Laura Terrasi v. Walpole, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20212149)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 3, 2031 SPR21/2149 Judy Ryan-Decker Walpole Police Department 50 South Street Walpole, MA 02081 Dear Ms. Ryan-Decker: I have received the petition of Laura Terrasi, Esq. of Melick & Porter, LLP, appealing the response of the Walpole Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 3, 2021, Attorney Terrasi requested certain records, including “[t]he settlement agreement between the Town of Walpole/Walpole Police Department and [named individual] for her charge of discrimination complaint.” On August 19, 2021, the Department provided a response, denying access to responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Terrasi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2149, 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 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 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

Judy Ryan-Decker SPR21/2149 Page 2 September 3, 2021 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s August 19th response In its August 19, 2021 response, the Department states “. . . the settlement agreement between the Town and [the named individual] will be withheld from disclosure, pursuant to Exemption (c), in light of her personal privacy interests in that document.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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). 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. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. 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). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). This exemption 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 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) ----------------------------

Judy Ryan-Decker SPR21/2149 Page 3 September 3, 2021 (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption 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. The issue of whether separation agreements are public records was decided in a 2013 Superior Court decision in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). In the Globe decision, the Superior Court affirmed the presumption that separation, severance, transition or settlement agreements are public records, subject to redaction. Id., at 34-35. In its 2013 Globe decision, the Court listed information that is properly subject to redaction under Exemption (c), including: (1) promotion of grade; (2) compensation at a different salary grade; (3) adjustment in compensation; (4) waiver of bumping rights and/or recall rights; (5) entitlement to remain on administrative leave; (6) requirement to tender a letter of resignation; (7) demand of voluntary resignation; (8) reinstatement; (9) layoff; (10) agreement by an agency to remove a letter from a personnel file; (11) agreement by an agency concerning the providing of references and their contents; (12) the requirement that an employee meet with a supervisor to review progress of assigned matters; (13) adjustment of an agency’s records to reflect an employee’s status; (14) adjustment or continuation of employee benefits, such as unemployment assistance, COBRA, and retirement benefits, and agreement regarding back wages; (15) recitations concerning grievances, including agreement to withdraw a grievance and acknowledgment by an employee of the absence of a pending grievance; (16) a statement of resolution of all claims concerning termination of employment and prior disciplinary actions, (17) agreement to turn in agency property, (18) global resolution involving the entering of a nolle prosequi by a prosecutorial official; (19) language affirming an agency’s legitimate concern for discipline and an employee’s receipt of a memorandum of verbal discipline; and (20) completion by an employer of harassment training. Globe, at 34-35. In light of the above, although the Department claims that the settlement agreement was withheld because of the individual’s “personal privacy interests[,]” it is unclear how the settlement agreement cannot be redacted to remove certain confidential information regarding the individual or information that constitutes intimate details of a highly personal

Judy Ryan-Decker SPR21/2149 Page 4 September 3, 2021 nature regarding the individual. The Department must determine whether there are any portions of the responsive records that do not fall within an exemption that would therefore be subject to mandatory disclosure. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-290 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Terrasi 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: Laura Terrasi, Esq.