Barbara Locke v. Woburn, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20243201)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 11, 2024 SPR24/3201 Maureen Ryan, M.Ed. Assistant Superintendent for Student Services Woburn Public Schools 55 Locust Street Woburn, MA 01801 Dear Ms. Ryan: I have received the petition of Barbara Locke appealing the response of the Woburn 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 January 23, 2024, Ms. Locke requested “copies of contracts ... specifically the Superintendent, Asst. Superintendents, Curriculum Coordinators and all positions that are not part of the WTA bargaining agreement.” On November 15, 2024, Ms. Locke requested “to have the same contracts provided to [her] . . . without the redactions.” The School responded on February 6, 2024, and again on November 18, 2024. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Ms. Locke petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/3201, 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 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

Maureen Ryan SPR24/3201 Page 2 December 11, 2024 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 February 6th and November 18th Responses In its November 18, 2024 response, the School refers back to its earlier February 28, 2024 response, in which the School states that it “has identified (54) contracts from the school years 2023-2024 that are responsive to [the] request.” The School provided numerous records in redacted form, and claims the records were redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (o). 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 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

Maureen Ryan SPR24/3201 Page 3 December 11, 2024 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 February 28th response, under Exemption (c), the School states that “documents that contain personnel or other information relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, will be redacted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).” Based on the School’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records or the redacted information constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Also, the School 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 School must clarify these matters. Exemption (o) Exemption (o) applies to: the home address, personal email address and home telephone number of an employee of the judicial branch, an unelected employee of the general court, an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of a political subdivision thereof or of an authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter 150E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o). In its response, under Exemption (o), the School states that “employee personal contact information will be redacted in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o).” Based on the School’s response, where the School has redacted home addresses, personal email addresses, and home telephone numbers of employees, I find that the School has met its burden to redact such information pursuant to Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law.

Maureen Ryan SPR24/3201 Page 4 December 11, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Locke 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: Barbara Locke