Jeff Raymond v. Watertown, City of - Police Department (SPR 20231612)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 26, 2023 SPR23/1612 Judy Patenaude Head Clerk Watertown Police Department 552 Main Street Watertown, MA 02472 Dear Ms. Patenaude: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Watertown 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 April 16, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested the following records: [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 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. 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

Judy Patenaude SPR23/1612 Page 2 July 26, 2023 [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. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1455 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 10, 2023). In my July 10th determination, I ordered the Department to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to his request. On July 12, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1612, 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. Att’y 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. 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. The Department’s July 12th Response In its July 12, 2023 response, the Department states: Based on the Department’s diligent review of your request and its records, there are records responsive to your request, including charts submitted to the POST Commission from the Police Department, as well as communications related to

Judy Patenaude SPR23/1612 Page 3 July 26, 2023 such submissions…. As an initial matter, the Department will be withholding and redacting information from the enclosed charts related to ongoing personnel matters at this time pursuant to Exemptions (c), (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law, as such matters remain pending at this time. 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 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. 2384CV00906 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) 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). 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).

Judy Patenaude SPR23/1612 Page 4 July 26, 2023 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 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). 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 pursuant to Exemption (c). Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). In regard to the Department’s response, where it cites Exemptions (d) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records, the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department merely cites Exemptions (d) and (f) without any explanation of the applicability of the exemptions to the responsive records. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must provide additional details

Judy Patenaude SPR23/1612 Page 5 July 26, 2023 regarding its Exemptions (d) and (f) claims to withhold records from disclosure. Fee estimate – municipalities 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 of Records 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 of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). In its July 12th response, the Department also provides a fee estimate of $50.00. The Department states: With respect to documents identified in your request related to POSTC spreadsheets and communications between the Department and the POST Commission and/or other municipal administration, upon payment of the fee estimated below, your request will be further processed…. 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. Employee search time: Title Hours Per Hour Cost Police Chief (to search for 4 hours $73.69 hour-reduced to and locate communications $25.00/hour, as required by requested) law TOTAL 2 Hours $50

Judy Patenaude SPR23/1612 Page 6 July 26, 2023 ….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. Although the Department has estimated that it will take 4 hours of search time, the Department must explain why 4 hours of search time is required to produce the responsive records. The Department must provide further details regarding the task(s) involved in the search process. G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under subsection (b).” Where Mr. Raymond submitted a public records request on April 16, 2023 and the Department provided a response on July 12, 2023, I find it is unclear whether the Department complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e). Specifically, the Department must demonstrate whether it provided a response to Mr. Raymond’s request under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) within 10 business days of receipt of the request. I encourage the parties to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. The requestor may wish to narrow the scope of the request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The Department must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). For the reasons discussed above, I find the Department must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request, 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.

Judy Patenaude SPR23/1612 Page 7 July 26, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond