Katherine A. Connolly v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20212966)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 17, 2021 SPR21/2966 Jeanmarie Tarara Records Access Officer Town of Holbrook 50 North Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Tarara: I have received the petition of Katherine A. Connolly appealing the response of the Town of Holbrook (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 22, 2021, Ms. Connolly requested a “Current List of Outstanding Water & Sewer Bills due the Town of Holbrook by property owners & businesses, listing names and addresses and amounts due.” The Town responded on November 1, 2021, providing responsive records in redacted form, and citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Connolly appealed, and this case 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 agency or municipality 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 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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR21/2966 Page 2 November 17, 2021 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Connolly contends that “unpaid water/sewer/tax accounts are public record and the exemption applied by the Town of Holbrook in their November 5th response does not apply to [her] request.” The Town’s November 1st Response In its November 1, 2021 response, the Town cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting portions of the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, §7926)(c). 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. 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 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) ---------------------------- (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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR21/2966 Page 3 November 17, 2021 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. Under Exemption (c), the Town argues the following: Information identifying individual property owners, including the property owner’s name, account number, and address have been redacted pursuant to the privacy exemption of Exemption (c). This information, if disclosed, would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, because it identifies that an identifiable individual is experiencing financial difficulties and indebtedness. The identification of individuals’ financial troubles also constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature. Lastly, this information is not available from other sources. I find the Town has not met its burden to redact the information described above pursuant to Exemption (c). Specifically, the Department has not established that the privacy interest in this information is not substantially outweighed by a public interest in disclosure. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 157 (1979) (holding that although disclosure of a list of tax delinquents would certainly result in personal embarrassment, disclosure did not publicize “‘intimate details’ of a ‘highly personal’ nature . . .” because, an owner “. . . does not have the same expectation of privacy concerning his legal obligation as he has in his private financial affairs”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Connolly with a response to her 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Katherine Connolly