Harold Rhodes v. Milford, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20230784)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 5, 2023 SPR23/0784 Richard A. Villani Town Administrator Town of Milford 52 Main Street, Room #11 Milford, MA 01757 Dear Mr. Villani: I have received the petition of Harold S. Rhodes appealing the response of the Town of Milford (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 30, 2022, Mr. Rhodes requested the following records: 1. Meeting minutes for all meetings during 2020, 2021, and 2022 for the Milford Retirement Board, or where these minutes can be found on the Town website. 2. A list of all retirees and the amount of their retirement benefit. It would be appreciated if the department from which each retiree retired would be included. On December 12, 2022, Mr. Rhodes modified his request as follows: I am requesting all emails, since January 1, 2022, that include my name, in any form, written by, or in the possession of, any Town Employee, any Special Municipal Town Employee, any person who provides contractual services, or any other person who falls directly and indirectly within your jurisdiction or supervision (except for any emails to or from [named persons] that directly concern the pending litigation). Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR22/2863 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 27, 2022) and SPR23/0106 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 9, 2023 and March 30, 2023). In my March 30th in camera review, I found that to the extent the records contain the names of specific individuals who filed medical claims with the Town, as well as the status of the medical claims, the information may be redacted under Exemption (c). The Town responded on April 18, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Rhodes petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/0784, was opened as a result. 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

Richard A. Villani SPR23/0784 Page 2 May 5, 2023 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. The Town’s April 18th response In its April 18, 2023 response, the Town claimed Exemption (c) to redact the names of individuals who filed medical claims as well as the status of the medical claims. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Rhodes claims that the Town did not provide a formal response and further stated that “[t]he Town [did not] indicate the exemption under which each redaction is being made, as required by the Second Order of the Supervisor of Records.” 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. 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.

Richard A. Villani SPR23/0784 Page 3 May 5, 2023 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. In its April 18th response, the Town advised, “I have reviewed the Retirement Board Minutes and attached are the redacted Minutes. The only redactions were the names of the three (3) individuals who filed for disability claims. All other information is provided to you ... the Supervisor of Records determined that to the extent the records contain the names of specific individuals who filed medical claims with the Town, as well as the status of the medical claims, the information may be redacted under Exemption (c).” Upon review, I find that the Town has met its burden to withhold the requested records pursuant to Exemptions (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, this appeal is now closed.

Richard A. Villani SPR23/0784 Page 4 May 5, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Harold S. Rhodes