Frank Wood v. Framingham, City of - City Council Department (SPR 20220642)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 1, 2022 SPR22/0642 P.J. Iversen City Records Access Officer Mayor’s Office City of Framingham 150 Concord St. Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iverson: I have received the petition of Frank Wood appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 15, 2022, Mr. Wood requested, “…all emails in the box of [named person] with a subject line that contains the phrase ‘Fram Dems’. Date to search 1/1/2021- 2/15/2022.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR22/0531 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 11, 2022). In the March 11th determination I found that the City intended on providing a supplemental response to Mr. Wood. On March 17, 2022, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the redactions of personal email addresses, Mr. Wood petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0642, was opened as 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

P.J. Iversen SPR22/0642 Page 2 April 1, 2022 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) (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…”); 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). The City’s March 11, 2022, response In its March 11th response, the City provided the requested records with redactions and justified the redactions under Exemption (c). 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 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). In its March 11, 2022, response the City provided a redaction table explaining that the redactions were made to personal email addresses.

P.J. Iversen SPR22/0642 Page 3 April 1, 2022 Personal email addresses, which are generally not listed within any sort of directory or available by any other means of a public search, similar in many respects to unlisted phone numbers, favor a finding of non-disclosure. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interests associated with the redacted information. Consequently, the responsive personal email addresses may be withheld. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Frank Wood