Dylan Lambert v. Leicester, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20212986)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 19, 2021 SPR21/2986 Dr. Marilyn Tenzca Superintendent Leicester Public Schools 3 Washburn Square Leicester, MA 01524 Dear Superintendent Tenzca: I have received the petition of Dylan Lambert appealing the response of the Leicester Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 18, 2021, Mr. Lambert requested “records in relation to…the assistant superintendent hiring process.” Mr. Lambert explained he was requesting, “[a]ll documentation (emails, correspondence and communications)” and listed the following: 1. Pre-screening of candidates. How were the 8 in-person candidates selected? 2. All Communications to Committee members. How were they selected? Were there volunteers not selected and why? 3. Post interview communications. When did the committee meet again to select two finalists for meet and greet? 4. Any communications from committee members after interviews took place. The School provided a response on November 4, 2021, which included redacted records. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Lambert petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2986, 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). 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

Superintendent Tenzca SPR21/2986 Page 2 November 19, 2021 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 School’s November 4th Response On November 4, 2021, the School stated it “completed its search for records in response to requests numbered 2, 3 and 4 to [Mr. Lambert] public records request to the Leicester Public Schools dated September 18, 2021. The documents responding to those requests [were] attached.” The School explained that “the names of unsuccessful candidates have been redacted and documents related to same have not been produced in order to comply with the ‘privacy exemption’ to the Public Records Law set forth in M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. Twenty-Sixth (c), which exempts from disclosure personnel file records and other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.” In addition, the School further explained that “[t]he other redactions pertain to emails that do not relate to the assistant superintendent search and, thus, are not responsive to your request.” 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,

Superintendent Tenzca SPR21/2986 Page 3 November 19, 2021 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) ---------------------------- (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. Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper ----------------- Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein ------------ v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The School’s November 4th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Particularly, while portions of the record may fall within Exemption (c), it is unclear how the “documents related” to unsuccessful candidates, can be withheld in their entirety. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The School’s response cites Exemption (c) without a sufficient explanation of the applicability of the exemptions to the responsive records being withheld in their entirety. The School is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the

Superintendent Tenzca SPR21/2986 Page 4 November 19, 2021 requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Further, to deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). The School must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Lambert with a response to his 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: Dylan Lambert Kimberly Rozaq, Esq.