Anthony Cammalleri v. Greenfield, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20242833)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 28, 2024 SPR24/2833 Kathryn J. Scott Records Access Officer City of Greenfield 14 Court Square Greenfield, MA 01301 Dear Ms. Scott: I have received the petition of Anthony Cammalleri, of the Greenfield Recorder, 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 September 19, 2024, Mr. Cammalleri requested “letters for resignation – for the following [list of five named individuals].” The City responded on September 26, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Cammalleri petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/2833, 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. 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. 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 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

Kathryn J. Scott SPR24/2833 Page 2 October 28, 2024 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Cammalleri contends that he “. . . was requesting letters of resignation after multiple City Hall employees across various departments quit somewhat abruptly. The city argued that these documents were ‘termination information,’ when they are in fact letters of resignation.” The City’s September 26th Response In its September 26, 2024 response, the City cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. 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). 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

Kathryn J. Scott SPR24/2833 Page 3 October 28, 2024 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 September 26th response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: There are no responsive letters in response to one of your requests. To the extent there are responsive letters, they are exempt from disclosure. The definition of a personnel record is broad and encompasses any records that identify an employee and are used or may be used relative to that employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, disciplinary action, or termination of employment. A resignation letter, which is directly related to termination of employment, falls under the definition of personnel records. M. G. L. C. 4 § 7 (26)(c) exempts from disclosure “core categories of personnel information” that are useful “ in making employment decisions regarding an employee”. This exemption has been interpreted to include “termination information.” Since a resignation letter is a personnel record with termination information, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to M. G. L. C. 4 § 7 (26)(c). In addition to resignation letters being generally exempt from disclosure, it is further noted that one of the requested resignation letters contains personal information that is protected by the privacy exemption pursuant to M. G. L. C. 4 § 7 (26) (c). The public interest in the disclosure of the information on such a letter, which concerns private family matters, is outweighed by the seriousness of the invasion of privacy that would result from disclosing the letter. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claim made by the City to withhold responsive records, the City must provide this office with un- redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the City’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981)

Kathryn J. Scott SPR24/2833 Page 4 October 28, 2024 (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anthony Cammalleri Brendan L. Hughes, Esq.