David Stockbridge v. Assabet Valley Regional Technical High School (SPR 20232661)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 17, 2023 SPR23/2661 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/District) 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. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/2360 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 18, 2023). In the October 18th determination, I ordered the School to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The School provided a response on November 2, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Stockbridge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2661, was opened as a result. 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 SPR23/2661 Page 2 November 17, 2023 Status of the Requestor In his appeal petition, Mr. Stockbridge explains that he requires the information contained in the requested records because “[a]s the Insurance Advisory Committee Representative it is necessary to provide information and to create dialogue with enrollees as it applies to any proposed changes in health care plans.” 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 “never requested information in regards to what ‘health insurance plan’ individuals are prescribed to,” nor has he “objected to redactions that are unrelated to [his] request for contact information for plan enrollees.” The School’s November 2nd response In its November 2, 2023 response, the School provides additional information to support its redactions to the record under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Superintendent Ernest F. Houle SPR23/2661 Page 3 November 17, 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.

Superintendent Ernest F. Houle SPR23/2661 Page 4 November 17, 2023 Citing Exemption (c), the School states the following: [T]he District provided a redacted document responsive to Request No. 1… [T]he District redacted the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, and physical addresses of the individual retirees (private citizens) enrolled in the District’s health insurance program. The redacted information contained in the responsive document does not pertain to active public servants but rather retired employees of the District. Although there are no medical diagnoses or conditions listed in the responsive document, the document does contain the health insurance plan that each retiree has enrolled in…Further the identities of the retirees enrolled in the District’s health insurance plan are not available from other sources. Finally, the District is unaware of what, if any, public interest lies in the identities, telephone numbers, and physical and email addresses of the retired employees enrolled in the District’s health insurance plan. There is no issue as to whether ‘public employees are carrying out their duties in an efficient and law-abiding manner’ as the identities are of retired District employees. See Police Comm. of Boston, 419 Mass. 852, 858 (1995). Therefore, there is no outweighing public interest in the disclosure of the redacted information over the privacy interests of the retired enrollees. Accordingly, the District will not provide the requested unredacted information at this time. Based on the School’s response, to the extent that the records contain details of individual health insurance plans, personal phone numbers, and personal email addresses, the School may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure. However, the School has not demonstrated that the additional redacted information such as names and physical addresses constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature or that the disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The School must clarify these matters. 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.

Superintendent Ernest F. Houle SPR23/2661 Page 5 November 17, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Stockbridge