David Stockbridge v. Assabet Valley Regional Technical High School (SPR 20232360)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 18, 2023 SPR23/2360 Superintendent Ernest F. Houle Superintendent-Director Assabet Valley Regional Technical/Vocational School District 215 Fitchburg Street Marlborough, MA 01752 Dear Superintendent Houle: I have received the petition of David Stockbridge appealing the response of the Assabet Valley Regional Technical High School (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 20, 2023, Mr. Stockbridge requested the following records: [1.] [A] complete list of all retirees enrolled in the insurance benefits program through AVRVSD. I expect that current emails, phone numbers, and or mailing addresses are readily available. [2.] [T]he current names and contact information for sitting committee members under the same law. I expect that any other interested candidate will receive the same information. [3]. [A]ny pertinent information as it applies to this committee, including scheduled meeting dates, deadlines, and the election process to all enrolled retirees. The School provided a response on September 6, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Stockbridge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2360, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor In his appeal petition, Mr. Stockbridge explains that he is “the newly elected advisor for the Insurance Advisory Committee representing retirees under M.G.L. Part I Title IV chapter 32b for Assabet Valley Technical High School.” 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

Superintendent Ernest F. Houle SPR23/2360 Page 2 October 18, 2023 Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Stockbridge’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Stockbridge states that he has “…been provided by the school district with a highly redacted version…of the information that [he] had requested that is essentially useless.” The School’s September 6th response In its September 6, 2023 response, the School provided Mr. Stockbridge with records responsive to Items 2 and 3 of his request. The School provided a redacted record in response to Item 1 of the request and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(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.

Superintendent Ernest F. Houle SPR23/2360 Page 3 October 18, 2023 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. Citing Exemption (c), the School states the following: The District does have a record which is responsive to your request, however, your request specifically asks for information which is not subject to disclosure under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), i.e., the Privacy Exemption. Therefore, I am enclosing the responsive document with all exempt information redacted[.]

Superintendent Ernest F. Houle SPR23/2360 Page 4 October 18, 2023 Based on the School’s response, it is unclear what type of information it redacted from the responsive records. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the School must identify what information it is withholding under Exemption (c). Further, the School has not demonstrated that the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature or that disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the redacted information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the School did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the redacted information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The School must clarify these issues. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Stockbridge with a response 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Stockbridge