Concerned Parents v. Greater Lowell Technical High School (SPR 20232463)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2023 SPR23/2463 Michael Knight Records Access Officer Greater Lowell Technical High School 250 Pawtucket Boulevard Tyngsborough, MA 01879 Dear Mr. Knight: I have received the petition of Concerned Parents appealing the response of the Greater Lowell 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 October 2, 2023, the requestor sought licenses of six named individuals. The School responded on October 12, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2463, 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. 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

Michael Knight SPR23/2463 Page 2 October 31, 2023 The School’s October 12th Response In its October 12, 2023 response, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact the responsive records. Current appeal In the appeal, the requestor stated, “[w]e appeal [the School’s] response under 950 C.M.R. 32.08 given that [the School] failed to adhere to… public records regulations in redacting or… withholding records that were in its custody, possession and control and that in addition do not qualify for exemptions that [the School] claims [Exemption (c)]… [the School] failed to produce any records of individual and professional development plans for these 4 staff named… [The School] failed the specificity requirements, they failed to specify the specific documents, the specific exemption for the specific documents and they failed to identify all responsive documents or produce them[.]” 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). 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).

Michael Knight SPR23/2463 Page 3 October 31, 2023 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. Under Exemption (c), the School states, “[the School] does not have records responsive to your current request that were not already previously produced to you, as no records were withheld... Additionally, the School reiterates that some redactions were made to the records in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)… These minimal redactions were made to protect the privacy and personnel interests of the individuals identified in the record.” The School’s response did not did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Based on the School’s response, it is unclear how the redacted portions of the records constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the 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 requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. As a result, I find that the School did not meet its burden of specificity in redacting the records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Further, it is unclear if the School possesses additional records that may be responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that responsive records exist, I find the School must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide the requestor 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Michael Knight SPR23/2463 Page 4 October 31, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Concerned Parents Attorney Madison Harris-Parks