Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20222905)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 5, 2023 SPR22/2905 Marissa Cameron Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 91824 Dear Ms. Cameron: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Chelmsford Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 14, 2022, Mr. Mazurczyk requested the following records: Emails [named person] or any other Department member exchanged with Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission (MPAC) … [named person] or any other MPAC member from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. The Department responded on September 28, 2022 and December 12, 2022. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2905, 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 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

Marissa Cameron SPR22/2905 Page 2 January 5, 2023 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. The Department responses In the Department’s September 28, 2022 response, the Department advised, “… attached [are] all emails exchanged between Lt. Hanscom and/or any other Department member with any Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission (MPAC) members from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Please note, personal phone numbers and personal email addresses have been redacted.” In the Department’s December 12, 2022 response, the Department asserted that the records were redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Petition In his petition Mr. Mazurczyk stated, “I didn’t request copies of emails in pdf and redacted format. Please provide emails I requested in their original format. Under what exemption(s) you claim I’m not privileged to see unredacted version of these records? MPAC may not be accountable to public records law, Chelmsford Police Department is.” Pursuant to C.M.R. 32.04 (5)(d) to the extent feasible, a custodian is to provide public records to a requester in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requester does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requester’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records shall be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. Also, “[a] records access officer shall presume a requestor prefers electronic copies and must provide electronic records in native form when possible.” 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(d). Upon review, it is unclear whether the Department can provide the requested records in the original format. The Department must clarify this matter. 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.

Marissa Cameron SPR22/2905 Page 3 January 5, 2023 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, 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. Sch. 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 Fin., 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. Based on the Department’s response, I find that the Department may permissibly withhold personal phone numbers and personal email addresses under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered provide a response to Mr. Mazurczyk made in accordance with this order, the Public Records Law, its Regulations and this order 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.

Marissa Cameron SPR22/2905 Page 4 January 5, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk