Elizabeth Eldridge v. Somerville, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20241708)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 24, 2024 SPR24/1708 Matthew Sirigu, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor/Labor Counsel City of Somerville Somerville City Hall 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Sirigu: I have received the petition of Elizabeth Eldridge appealing the response of the Somerville Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 5, 2023, Ms. Eldridge requested “[a]ny and all correspondence, details, documentation and investigation into [an identified incident] on May 4, 2023.” Previous appeals, Reconsideration, and In Camera Review This request was the subject of previous appeals, a subsequent reconsideration and in camera review. See SPR23/2645 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 10, 2023); SPR23/2728 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 22, 2023) and SPR23/3002 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (December 26, 2023, January 26, 2024, and March 18, 2024). The School responded on April 8, 2024. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Eldridge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1708, was opened as a result. In my March 18th determination, I found that the City had met its burden to redact the identity of the West Somerville Neighborhood School janitor pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. With regard to the personnel file, I found that the City did not meet its burden to withhold the entire personnel file under Exemption (c) of 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 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

Matthew Sirigu, Esq. SPR24/1708 Page 2 June 24, 2024 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. The School’s April 8th response In its April 8, 2024 response, the School stated, “[i]n the City’s February 14, 2024 submission to the Supervisor, we explained that it was providing unredacted copies of all records in its possession that are responsive to your request. Specifically, we advised the Supervisor that”: [T]he City’s investigator did not review the subject employee’s entire personnel file, only certain documents within that file, and the documents from the employee’s personnel file that were in fact reviewed by the investigator are all that are included here. It is my understanding, based upon information provided by the City’s investigator, the subject employee’s entire personnel file was not reviewed in the course of their investigation of the incident referred to in your complaint, and that the investigator requested portions of the employee’s personnel file relevant to the investigation be pulled by Human Resources staff. Therefore, the City provided the Supervisor with unredacted copies of all personnel documents responsive to your original request, including those previously provided to you with redactions or withheld, for in camera inspection, but not the entire personnel file. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Eldridge stated, “[c]ould you please confirm that the documents below that [an identified individual] sent on 4/8/24 are the same documents that were shared with you for an in camera inspection?” Based upon a telephone conversation with the City, the City confirmed that it has provided all responsive documents to Ms. Eldridge’s October 5, 2023 request for “[a]ny and all correspondence, details, documentation and investigation into [an identified incident] on May 4, 2023” for in camera review and these are the documents which were reviewed.

Matthew Sirigu, Esq. SPR24/1708 Page 3 June 24, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Elizabeth Eldridge