Jeff Raymond v. Hampden, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231789)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 16, 2023 SPR23/1789 Chief Scott Trombly Chief of Police Hampden Police Department 100 Allen Street Hampden, MA 01036 Dear Chief Trombly: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Hampden 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 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 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 Jamie M. Calise SPR23/1789 Page 2 August 16, 2023 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. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1173 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 15, 2023). In the June 15th determination, I directed the Department to identify the records being withheld and prove with specificity an exemption which applies. The Department provided a response on July 31, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1789, 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 July 31st response In its July 31, 2023 response, the Department withheld all responsive records from disclosure and cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The Department stated the following: The spreadsheets do not relate to law enforcement misconduct investigations as contemplated by the proviso in exemption (c). The spreadsheets do not contribute

Chief Jamie M. Calise SPR23/1789 Page 3 August 16, 2023 to underlying facts or even form a part of an investigatory analysis. Entries on the spreadsheets were not created as part of, or during the course of, a particular investigation. They were not created as part of the Department’s investigatory records. Rather, the spreadsheets were created in response to a state agency’s information request for personnel information about every officer in the Department regardless of whether the officer had ever been investigated. For any subset that might have been investigated, the conduct merely alleged might not even fall into the category of “police misconduct.” The indiscriminate disclosure of these documents would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of all of the individual officers involved. Weighing the privacy concerns of the individuals against the public good achieved by disclosure when the POST Commission is already charged with creating a relevant public database, the Department has concluded that the privacy concerns prevail against disclosure. For these reasons, the Department asserts exemption of the two spreadsheets from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and (c). The second reason the Department withholds these spreadsheets is on the basis that the Supervisor has specifically ruled that this request 1, along with 2 and 5, are the subject of active litigation such that pursuant to 950 CMR 32.08(2)(b) production shall not be compelled unless and until final rulings clarify the matter. See, Supervisor’s Determination SPR23/1208 p. 4; and Hovesepian, Scott et al v. Massachusetts Pease Officer Standards and Training Commission (Suffolk Superior Court Docket No. 2284CV00906). For the reasons stated, the Department withholds the two spreadsheets. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.”

Chief Jamie M. Calise SPR23/1789 Page 4 August 16, 2023 The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Based on the Department’s response, I find it has not met its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (a) to withhold the records in their entirety. The Department merely cites Exemption (a) without identifying a statute through which it could operate. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, the Department must cite a statute and said statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, I find the Department has not met its burden to withhold the responsive record from disclosure. The Department must identify the statute and explain with specificity, how the statute specifically or by necessary implication permits it to withhold the requested record from disclosure. 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.

Chief Jamie M. Calise SPR23/1789 Page 5 August 16, 2023 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 withheld. It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. See 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Department must clarify these matters. Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Regarding Items 1, 2, and 5 of the request, based on a July 17, 2023 letter from the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST), new information has come to light in which I find that records responsive to these Items are not related to the pending litigation.

Chief Jamie M. Calise SPR23/1789 Page 6 August 16, 2023 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. Mr. Raymond may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond