Bethany Andres-Beck v. Middleton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20232955)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 21, 2023 SPR23/2955 Dr. Scott R. Morrison Superintendent of Schools Middleton Public Schools 28 Middleton Road Boxford, MA 01921 Dear Dr. Morrison: I have received the petition of Beth Andres-Beck appealing the response of the Middleton Public Schools (School) to her request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 25, 2023, Ms. Andres-Beck requested emails sent to the School Board from June 5, 2023 to June 22, 2023, regarding a summer reading list. Prior Appeals and In camera Review The requested records were the subject of prior appeals and a subsequent in camera review. See SPR23/1676 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 4, 2023) and SPR23/2414 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (October 25, 2023; November 21, 2023). In my November 21st determination, I found that the School had not met its burden to redact the responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. On December 6, 2023, the School responded and provide a further response regarding its redactions under Exemption (c). Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Andres-Beck petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2955, 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 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

Dr. Scott R. Morrison SPR23/2955 Page 2 December 21, 2023 order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y 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. 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 School’s December 6th response In its December 6, 2023, response, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law as the basis for the redactions. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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).

Dr. Scott R. Morrison SPR23/2955 Page 3 December 21, 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. Regarding Exemption (c), while citing PETA, the School stated the following: Enclosed please find records that are responsive to your request, reproduced with some previous redactions undone. The School maintains that the names, personal email addresses, and phone numbers of the private citizens who sent these emails are exempt from production under Exemption (c) of G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)( c), as these individuals had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the emails they sent conveying sentiments of a highly personal nature to school officials. Personally identifying information which could negate those redactions, such as reference to potentially unique characteristic of the individual’s children on pages 6 and 15 of the produced records, reference to the individual’s street address on page 24 of the produced records, reference to a child’s name on page 10 and 27 of the produced records, or references to the individual’s potentially unique professional title on page 32 and 35 of the produced records, also remain redacted. However, in accordance with the Supervisor’s directive, the School has undone redactions within the body of the emails produced that are not reasonably personally identifying given the redactions of the names and email addresses, and therefore are segregable from the otherwise exempt portions of the records. With the exception of personal email addresses and phone numbers, which may be redacted, I find that while portions of the redacted records may fall within Exemption (c), as the redactions relate to a child, it is unclear how each redaction falls within this exemption. Particularly, it is uncertain how a citizen’s name constitutes 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. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Andres-Beck with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Andres-Beck may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Dr. Scott R. Morrison SPR23/2955 Page 4 December 21, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Beth Andres-Beck Kevin S. Freytag, Esq. Madison Harris-Parks, Esq.