Gerard F. Mackin, Jr. v. Weymouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20212313)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Town Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 14, 2021 SPR21/2225 and SPR21/2313 Kathleen A. Deree Town Clerk Town of Weymouth 75 Middle Street Weymouth, MA 02189 Dear Ms. Deree: I have received the petitions of Gerard Mackin appealing the response of the Town of Weymouth (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 23, 2021, Mr. Mackin requested, “… the minutes of any School Committee meetings in which any claims by former school Dept. [named] employee… were discussed.” On September 9, 2021 Mr. Mackin submitted a duplicate appeal regarding the same request. On August 23, 2001, the Town responded to the July 23rd request. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Mackin petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR21/2225 and SPR21/2313, were 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. 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

Kathleen Deree SPR21/2225 and SPR21/2313 Page 2 September 14, 2021 The Town’s August 23rd Response In its August 23, 2021 response, the Town stated that, “…this topic was discussed once by the School Committee meeting on January 30, 2020 and said meeting was in executive session. On August 19, 2021, the School Committee conducted a review of these minutes to determine whether continued nondisclosure is warranted. The determination was made that the portion of the minutes relevant to your request could be disclosed, with redactions to protect the privacy of the individuals discussed at the January 30, 2020 meeting, in accordance with G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26 (c), since the disclosure of this information may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 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). 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. 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). 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. In its August 23rd response, the Town claimed Exemption (c) to make certain redactions to the requested School Committee meeting minutes.

Kathleen Deree SPR21/2225 and SPR21/2313 Page 3 September 14, 2021 Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the redacted portions of the minutes contain 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 Town 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 Town did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Order Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Mackin 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, ~ ·~- er .. ~ ~ ./) /} _, ... Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Gerard Mackin