Jeff Raymond v. Essex, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231556)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 20, 2023 SPR23/1556 Paul D. Francis Chief of Police Essex Police Department 11 John Wise Avenue Essex, MA 01929 Dear Chief Francis: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Essex Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 10, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and its compliance with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s duties under Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 to create a ‘database listing complaints against police officers,’ as detailed below.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format 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

Chief Paul D. Francis SPR23/1556 Page 2 July 20, 2023 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission.”... [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. The Department provided a response on April 25, 2023, which included a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1556, 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 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 April 25th response In its April 25, 2023 response, the Department provided Mr. Raymond with certain redacted records responsive to his request. The Department claimed Exemption (c) in support of its redactions and stated the following: After an individual assessment of the records, please be advised that personnel information regarding specifically identified individuals contained in the enclosed charts submitted to the POST Commission by the Department has been redacted from the enclosed pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law…[.] In this instance, the [Department] has carefully considered the application of

Chief Paul D. Francis SPR23/1556 Page 3 July 20, 2023 Exemption (c) to the redacted charts enclosed, to determine whether disclosure of the information that has been redacted or withheld is such that the public’s right to know outweighs any individual officer’s privacy rights, and considered the factors set forth in the PETA case, cited above, as well as litigation pending in Massachusetts courts in the matters of Hovsepian, Scott et al. v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. 2284CV00906 and New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc., and Daniel Gilbert v. Massachusetts Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A 2384CV00500. In balancing these interests, the Town has concluded that it is appropriate to redact certain personnel information from the enclosed charts under Exemption (c). 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). 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). 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. 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).

Chief Paul D. Francis SPR23/1556 Page 4 July 20, 2023 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 upon the update to Exemption (c) where the amendment states that this “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it is unclear how the requested records can be redacted. Fees - Municipalities 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. A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two (2) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The Department’s April 25th fee estimate In its response, the Department stated that it intends to charge Mr. Raymond for 4 hours

Chief Paul D. Francis SPR23/1556 Page 5 July 20, 2023 at a rate of $25.00 per hour “…to search for and locate communications requested” for a total of $100.00. In support of its fee estimate, the Department stated the following: Under the Public Records Law, the Department is allowed to charge for employee search and segregation time necessary to respond to your request, together with any redactions required by law. That time is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling, segregating, redacting and reproducing responsive records, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i). Such hourly rate shall not exceed $25/hour unless otherwise authorized by the Supervisor of Records. Unless otherwise noted below, the lowest paid employees capable of performing the necessary searches are paid more than $25/hour, and therefore you will be charged the maximum rate of $25/hour. Please note that because the Town has less than 20,000 residents, pursuant to the last Decennial U.S. Census, you will be charged for all hours of work associated with this request. It is anticipated that the Department will make the documents available electronically and, as such, there will be no copying charges. The actual cost of producing the records may vary once the Department begins preparing the records for response. Upon receipt of you[r] payment in the amount of $ 100.00 made payable to the Town of Essex, the Department will begin the work necessary to search, segregate, and redact (where appropriate) the documents you have requested. 950 CMR 32.06(2)(f). Please note that pursuant to 950 CMR 32.06(2)(f), you will not be provided records until all fees are paid. The Department will provide a further basis if any records, are withheld or redacted in compliance with the Public Records Law, as noted above, including, but not limited to, pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. . . . Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what tasks are involved in searching for the responsive records and why the Department requires 4 hours for these tasks. The Department must provide more detail regarding its estimate and what the tasks entail. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide a response to Mr. Raymond, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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. Mr. Raymond may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)

Chief Paul D. Francis SPR23/1556 Page 6 July 20, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond