Colman Herman v. Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (SPR 20242079)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 1, 2024 SPR24/2079 Sean Calnan, Esq. Interim General Counsel Massachusetts Development Finance Agency 1350 Main Street, Suite 200 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Calnan: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (Agency) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 27, 2024, Mr. Herman requested, “[w]hat is the dollar value of the benefits that [a named individual] received during the three-month period?” The Agency responded on July 13, 2024, withholding responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the Agency’s response, Mr. Herman appealed, and this case, SPR24/2079, 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(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. 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

Sean Calnan, Esq. SPR24/2079 Page 2 August 1, 2024 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 Agency’s July 13th Response In its July 13, 2024 response, the Agency cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding records responsive to the request. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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. In its July 13, 2024 response, the Agency states, “MassDevelopment is withholding any records surrounding the value of [a named individual’s] benefits as the information constitutes exempted personnel information.” Based on the Agency’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the information constitutes intimate

Sean Calnan, Esq. SPR24/2079 Page 3 August 1, 2024 details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Also, the Agency did not provide 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Agency must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Agency is ordered to provide Mr. Herman with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman