Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20230672)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 21, 2023 SPR23/0672 Alexandra Hayden Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Hayden: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Chelmsford Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 14, 2022, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “[e]mails [a named person] or any other Department member exchanged with Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission (MPAC)…[a named person] or any other MPAC member from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.” Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR22/2905 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2023) and SPR23/0395 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 14, 2023). In my March 14th response, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Mazurczyk with a response. On March 27, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/0672, 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). 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

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/0672 Page 2 April 21, 2023 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. The Department’s March 27th Response In the Department’s March 27, 2023 response, the Office asserts that, “[a]s previously stated in Ms. Cameron’s response, [p]ersonal phone numbers and/or email addresses are redacted based upon the following exemption under…[Exemption (c)]….” The Department contends: As previously stated, because redactions are sometimes made to information, we make a copy of the original document to protect it for future requested use. Furthermore, all responses to record requests can either be emailed with a redacted PDF, printed with redactions which the requestor can then come and pick up in person at our station lobby. On rare occasions the requestor asks for it to be mailed…via U.S. Mail. It has been past practice to email or have the requestor come in to pick up the records as mailing them does not guarantee the department will meet the 10 business day requirement. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Mazurczyk argues: Above response is evasive and nonresponsive….It’s clear Department is in possession of requested records. It’s unclear if these records are subject to [E]xemption (c). Note, Department policy is based on requested records…. 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.

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/0672 Page 3 April 21, 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. Further, based on the Department’s response, in conjunction with Mr. Mazurczyk’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay).

Alexandra Hayden SPR23/0672 Page 4 April 21, 2023 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mazurczyk 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, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk