Elizabeth Eldridge v. Somerville, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20243017)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 21, 2024 SPR24/3017 Dr. Rubén Carmona Superintendent of Schools Somerville Public Schools Somerville City Hall 167 Holland Street Somerville, MA 02144 Dear Dr. Carmona: 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 September 13, 2024, Ms. Eldridge requested “a resume for an [identified] teacher...” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/2891 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 5, 2024). In my November 5th Determination, it was my understanding that the School intended on providing a further response to Ms. Eldridge. The School responded on November 6, 2024. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Eldridge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3017, 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 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

Dr. Rubén Carmona SPR24/3017 Page 2 November 21, 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. 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 School’s November 6th response In its November 6, 2024 response, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested record. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Eldridge states, “[w]e are writing to appeal the Somerville Public Schools 11/6/24 response to SPR24/2891 and the denial to provide [an identified individual’s] resume. Contrary to Dr. ... statement, we are confident we have not been provided with all relevant licensure and training for [an identified individual] and our participation in the IEP process has been limited because of this. We again are requesting [an identified individual]’s resume, redacted of any statutorily exempt material as the district detailed it ‘is in possession of a single resume for [an identified individual]’.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: 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).

Dr. Rubén Carmona SPR24/3017 Page 3 November 21, 2024 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) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires 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 response the School stated, The District is in possession of a single resume for [an identified individual], which was submitted with her employment application. Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’”, such as resumes from “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee,” are subject to the personnel information exemption and may be withheld from disclosure ... The entirety of [an identified individual’s] employment application, including her resume, is of a personal nature and constitutes personnel information that is absolutely exempt from disclosure under Massachusetts law. As such, it is being withheld from disclosure under the personnel clause of Exemption (c). In addition, information in a resume is also exempt under the privacy clause of M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c)... The requested resume contains information of a highly personal nature, would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities if released, and is not available from other public sources. Any public interest in this resume is minimal and does not substantially

Dr. Rubén Carmona SPR24/3017 Page 4 November 21, 2024 outweigh these privacy interests, particularly given the substance of the information that has already being provided to you establishing the relevant licensure and trainings of all of your children’s teachers, including [an identified individual]. As such, the resume is also being withheld under the privacy clause of Exemption (c). Where the requested resume was submitted as part of the employment application, I find that the record falls within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and is exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .” Id. at 6. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Ms. Eldridge is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Elizabeth Eldridge