Jeff Raymond v. Lanesborough, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231800)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 16, 2023 SPR23/1800 Chief Robert J. Derksen Lanesborough Police Department 8 Prospect Street Lanesborough, MA 01237 Dear Chief Derksen: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Lanesborough 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 15, 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…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST 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 Robert J. Derksen SPR23/1800 Page 2 August 16, 2023 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. Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR23/1256 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 27, 2023) and SPR23/1609 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25, 2023). In my July 25th determination, I found that the Department had met its burden to assess a fee to produce records responsive to Item 6. I also found that the Department had not met its burden to redact records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. On August 2, 2023, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1800, 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(d)(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…”); 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). 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 August 2nd response In its August 2, 2023 response, the Department reiterated its arguments for redacting responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.

Chief Robert J. Derksen SPR23/1800 Page 3 August 16, 2023 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). 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.

Chief Robert J. Derksen SPR23/1800 Page 4 August 16, 2023 When citing Exemption (c), the Department stated: It remains the Department’s position that disciplinary information redacted from the charts provided to you previously are properly exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. As noted previously, the Department conducted an individual assessment of the records, and concluded that limited personnel information – specifically disciplinary information regarding specifically identified individuals contained in the charts submitted to the POST Commission by the Police Department, was appropriately redacted 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. In balancing these interests, the Department concluded that it is appropriate to redact certain personnel information from the enclosed charts under Exemption (c). The Department also stated: As the Supervisor noted in her determination, the Town and Department acknowledge generally the public’s right to know whether public servants are performing their duties in a law abiding manner. The Town contends that the limited redactions serve this function, while also properly balancing employees’ privacy interests in light of both PETA and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette decisions. While the Supervisor requested further information regarding the minimal redactions made to disciplinary information contained in employee’s confidential personnel file under Exemption (c) in light of the statutory amendments to Exemption (c) enacted as part of the Police Reform Act, it is the Town’s position that there is nothing in the revised Exemption (c) that expressly abrogates the Worcester Telegram & Gazette decision, which expressly considered what information related to internal affairs investigation files was subject to public disclosure. There is a legal distinction between confidential personnel information and internal affairs or law enforcement misconduct investigative materials. Therefore, revised Exemption (c) can be interpreted as simply codifying the holding of Worcester Telegram & Gazette, in which instance redacting the express discipline imposed in any particular situation involving a police officer is consistent with the amended Exemption (c). Neither the Supervisor nor any Court has interpreted exactly how far the amendments to Exemption (c) are intended to extend. Until such time, it is the Town’s position that the limited redactions made to the records provided to you are appropriate under Exemption (c) and the case law cited above.

Chief Robert J. Derksen SPR23/1800 Page 5 August 16, 2023 Despite the Department’s response, I find it has not met its burden to redact records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Where the amendment states that this “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it remains unclear how the requested records can be redacted. 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond