Martha White v. Hopedale, Town of (SPR 20243413)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 6, 2025 SPR24/3413 Mitch Ruscitti Town Administrator Town of Hopedale 78 Hopedale Street, P. O. Box 7 Hopedale, MA 01747 Dear Mr. Ruscitti: I have received the petition of Martha White appealing the response of the Town of Hopedale (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 5, 2024, Ms. White requested all written communications sent or received by five named Town employees which discussed the performance of a named former Town employee. The Town provided a response on December 17, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. White petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3413, 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 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. 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

Mitch Ruscitti SPR24/3413 Page 2 January 6, 2025 Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. White’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed under the Public Records Law. The Town’s December 17th Response In its December 17, 2024 response, the Town stated: Please be advised that the Town has approximately 20 records responsive to your request. These records are being withheld pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, as redaction is not possible since the individual is named in your request … After this careful, individualized assessment, the Town has determined that requested records contains confidential personnel information which implicates the privacy rights of the named individual pursuant to the provisions of Exemption (c) and such information was not publicly disclosed. Current Appeal In her December 20, 2024 petition to this office, Ms. White stated that “the privacy rights of the named individual” ought not to prevent the disclosure of the responsive records, as the named individual does not object to the release of the records. 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.

Mitch Ruscitti SPR24/3413 Page 3 January 6, 2025 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 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. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute “one of the core categories of personnel information,” as contemplated by Exemption (c). Further, it is not clear from the Town’s response how the responsive records constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Additionally, the Town has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See 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 Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. White with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. White may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Mitch Ruscitti SPR24/3413 Page 4 January 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Martha White