Molly Rockwood v. Hingham, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20250343)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 14, 2025 SPR25/0343 Kathryn Roberts Superintendent Hingham Public Schools 220 Central Street Hingham, MA 02150 Dear Superintendent Roberts: I have received the petition of Attorney Molly Rockwood appealing the response of the Hingham 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 December 19, 2024, Attorney Rockwood requested the following records regarding an incident that occurred on June 17, 2024: [1.] Any and all investigation report(s) including draft report(s) and recommendations; [2.] Any and all witness statements; [3.] A copy of the investigator’s notes; [4.] Any and all written correspondence including but not limited to emails and text messages related to this incident and the investigation performed by the District into the event; [5.] Any and all written correspondence including but not limited to emails and text messages with the certified union representative regarding the June 17, 2024 incident. On January 7, 2025, the School provided a response. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Rockwood petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0343, 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 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 Kathryn Roberts SPR25/0343 Page 2 February 14, 2025 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal, Attorney Rockwood states, “[w]e wish to appeal their denial of the first three (3) records requested… As a clarification, we are not appealing the fee request at this time.” The School’s January 7th Response In its January 7, 2025 response, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to the first three items of the request and provided a fee estimate for the last two items of the request. 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

Superintendent Kathryn Roberts SPR25/0343 Page 3 February 14, 2025 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). 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. Under Exemption (c), the School stated, “[d]ocuments responsive to your first three requests are being withheld in their entirety as the responsive records include personnel record information or private personal information which is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law… Records responsive to [Attorney Rockwood’s] first three requests concern an identified personnel incident and are the personnel records of the identified employee. Since the records request identifies this employee, there is no way to redact the records to remove the risk of identification of that employee. Accordingly, any responsive documents are being withheld in their entirety.” The School’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Based on the School’s response, it is unclear how the withheld records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information that are useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. Further, it is not clear how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the School did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public

Superintendent Kathryn Roberts SPR25/0343 Page 4 February 14, 2025 interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The School must clarify these matters. In addition, based on the School’s response, it is unclear what types of records it possesses. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the School must identify the records in its possession that it withheld under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Attorney Rockwood 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. Attorney Rockwood may appeal the substantive nature of School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Molly Rockwood, Esq.