Glen Ayers v. Greenfield, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20242198)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 16, 2024 SPR24/2198 Kathryn J. Scott Records Access Officer City of Greenfield 14 Court Square Greenfield, MA 01301 Dear Ms. Scott: I have received the petition of Glen Ayers appealing the response of the City of Greenfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 17, 2024, Mr. Ayers requested “a redacted copy of the letter dated 4/5/2024 signed by [a named individual] and addressed to [a named individual]” and requested that the City “redact all personally identifying information in this letter, including all unsubstantiated allegations, innuendos, baseless accusations, spurious fabrications, derisive attacks, derogatory claims, and intentional efforts at character assassination that are contained within this letter signed by the Mayor … redact claims of misogyny, male chauvinism, and unsubstantiated allegations of sexist behavior that were contained in the letter and which could be perceived to be a baseless and gratuitous attack on character … redact those sections, words, phrases, and sentences that were meant to be coercive and could be perceived as an intentional violation of civil rights by an elected official acting in her official capacity under the color of law.” The City responded on July 29, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ayers petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2198, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on August 8, 2024. 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). 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

Katheryn J. Scott SPR24/2198 Page 2 August 16, 2024 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. 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 City’s Responses In its July 29, 2024 response, the City provided the responsive record. In its August 8, 2024 response, the City stated the following: [i]n the instant matter, the City informed the Appellant that while they will not make the requested redaction, they will provide him with the record that he seeks to be redacted. Here, that record happens to be a disciplinary document that would ordinarily be exempt from public disclosure under M.G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The only reason the City provided the Appellant the record in response to his request is because it is his own personnel record, which he’s personally entitled to review or receive a copy of under other provisions of Massachusetts law. The purpose of the privacy protection in the Public Records law is to protect his records from disclosure to others. If not for the fact that he’s legally entitled to his own personnel records, the response would have been that the record cannot be disclosed at all under the personal record/privacy exemption. In conclusion, the City contends that Mr. Ayer’s request for the City to redact his personnel record is not a legitimate request for records and that it should be dismissed on appeal on its merits and for lack of jurisdiction… Moreover, he has been provided the document which he is demanding the City redact for public disclosure. There is no reason why the Appellant cannot redact this record on his own and publicize whatever it is that he wishes to publicize. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, Mr. Ayers stated, “the City has improperly and over-broadly applied Exemption (c) without sufficient justification… The City chose to completely withhold the document in its entirety instead of properly redacting any protected information in the record that could be considered to be of a highly personal nature or an invasion of privacy, simply by stating that the entire document is exempt by claiming it is part of a ‘personnel file’… Furthermore, the request specifically asked that any personal information that would legitimately be covered by Exemption (c) be redacted from the letter and that only the policy declarations directed at the Chair and the Board of Health be released.”

Katheryn J. Scott SPR24/2198 Page 3 August 16, 2024 In response to the City’s August 8th response, Mr. Ayers stated, “[t]he City … [has] failed to provide a reasonable justification for why the personal information contained within the 4/5/24 letter cannot be redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) so that the substantive policy declarations also contained in the letter, and directed at the entire Board of Health can be disclosed to the affected public. While I do have a copy of the letter, I did not create the policy directive, and therefore I should not be the one disclosing this to the public. Instead it should be officially disclosed by the City, since it was the Mayor who created this policy directive.” Please be advised that in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where the City provided Mr. Ayers with the record he sought in un-redacted format on July 29, 2024, and Mr. Ayers seeks for information to be redacted, he has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the City. As such, I find that the basis of Mr. Ayers’ appeal is unclear. Mr. Ayers is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Glen Ayers Linda Berrios