Michael W. Donahue v. Georgetown, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20242982)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 14, 2024 SPR24/2982 Margo Ferrick Superintendent of Schools Georgetown Public Schools 51 North Street Georgetown, MA 01833 Dear Superintendent Ferrick: I have received the petition of Michael Donahue appealing the response of the Georgetown 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 11, 2024, Mr. Donahue requested the following: [1.] Georgetown School District employee payroll identified by employee for the period September 1, 2023 to the present [2.] Georgetown School District employee attendance records identified by employee for the period September 1, 2022 to the present[.] The School provided a response on October 30, 2024. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Donahue petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2982, 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 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

Superintendent Margo Ferrick SPR24/2982 Page 2 November 14, 2024 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 October 30th Response In its October 30, 2024 response, the School provided records responsive to Item 1 and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to Item 2 of the request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Donahue states, “[i]t is well established that attendance records are not exempt and are part of payroll data. Attendance records contain employee name, employee number, the pay period, the days worked and all leave during that pay period… If the district’s payroll attendance records contain exempt information such as employee address, phone or email, those data fields may be redacted, but the underlying data on specifically identifiable employees is public.” 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)

Superintendent Margo Ferrick SPR24/2982 Page 3 November 14, 2024 (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). 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. Under Exemption (c), the School stated, “[p]lease note that some attendance records will be withheld.” Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The School’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The School merely cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law without any explanation of its applicability to the responsive records. The School must provide additional information regarding how the records are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Donahue with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) 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: Michael Donahue