Todd Wallack v. Natick, Town of (SPR 20212961)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 18, 2021 SPR21/2961; SPR21/2965 Kathleen Lentini Communication/Information Officer Town of Natick Natick Town Hall 13 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Ms. Lentini: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack appealing the response of the Town of Natick (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 10, 2021, Mr. Wallack requested the following records: Request #1: … a copy of any agreements between New England Police Benevolent Association Local #2 and the Natick Patrol Officers’ Association and the Town signed since 2018” referencing specific officers. Request #2: …a copy of an agreement titled “LAST CHANCE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS” between [named person] the New England Police Benevolent Association Local #2 and the Natick Patrol Officers' Association and the Town of Natick. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR211/2248 and SPR21/2249 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 15, 2021). The Town responded on November 8, 2021. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR21/2961 and SPR21/2965, were opened as a result. 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 Lentini SPR21/2961; SPR21/2965 Page 2 November 18, 2020 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s November 8th response In its November 8th response, the Town withheld the requested records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. 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). Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306,308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person's body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Examiner, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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.

Kathleen Lentini SPR21/2961; SPR21/2965 Page 3 November 18, 2020 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 ass. 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 opined, “the record you seek is an order of disciplinary action and is therefore exempt from production pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.” Based upon the update to Exemption (c) where the current language denotes the exemption, “shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it is unclear how the requested records can be withheld. The Town must clarify this. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Attorney Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90.

Kathleen Lentini SPR21/2961; SPR21/2965 Page 4 November 18, 2020 As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438. The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. In its November 8th response, the Town asserted, “[t]he Town is also aware that the criminal investigation into the underlying incident which was the subject of the discipline has not been closed. Disclosure of the responsive record may, therefore, prejudice any potential criminal proceedings in this matter. The record is, therefore, presently exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (f) …” The Town’s response did not provide supporting information on how the investigative process is ongoing. It is uncertain how disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required by Exemption (f). Based upon the above, I find that the Town may not withhold the requested records in their entirety. Order Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Wallack with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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: Todd Wallack