John Cronin v. Freetown-Lakeville Regional School District (SPR 20250380)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Office Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 14, 2025 SPR25/0380 John Burke Chair Freetown-Lakeville Regional School District Committee 98 Howland Road Lakeville, MA 02347 Dear Chair Burke: I have received the petition of John Cronin appealing the response of the Freetown- Lakeville Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 10, 2024, Mr. Cronin requested “... the superintendent survey comments in their entirety.” Previous Appeals and In Camera Review This request was the subject of previous appeals and a subsequent in camera review. See SPR24/2971 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 12, 2024) and SPR24/3318 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 23, 2024; January 9, 2025). In my January 9th determination, I found that the District had met its burden to justify only certain redactions under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law, and ordered the District to provide Mr. Cronin with a further response. The District provided a response on January 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Cronin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0380, 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). 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

John Burke SPR25/0380 Page 2 February 14, 2025 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. The District’s January 24th Response In its January 24, 2025 response, the District provided Mr. Cronin with redacted copies of the responsive records. To justify these redactions, the District cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his February 7, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Cronin objects to the District’s redactions, stating his belief that the redactions should be limited to names, addresses, and contact information. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to

John Burke SPR25/0380 Page 3 February 14, 2025 a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its January 24, 2025 response to Mr. Cronin, the District cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), its associated regulations, and 603 C.M.R. 23.00 et seq. to justify the redaction of “… personally identifying student record information … beyond the mere redaction of student names.” “Education records” under FERPA are defined as: those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(i-ii). FERPA defines “personally identifiable information” as including, but not limited to: The student’s name; (b) The name of the student’s parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student’s family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; (t) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. 603 C.M.R. 23.02 defines “student record” as follows: Student Record shall consist of the Transcript and the Temporary Record, including all information--recording and computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche, or any other materials--regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student’s name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the Commonwealth. The term as used in 603 CMR 23.00 shall mean all such information and materials regardless of where they are located, except for the information and materials specifically exempted by 603 CMR 23.04. 603 C.M.R. 23.02 (emphasis in original).

John Burke SPR25/0380 Page 4 February 14, 2025 Additionally, 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4) provides in pertinent part: Access of Third Parties. Except for the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(4)(a) through 23.07(4)(h), no third party shall have access to information in or from a student record without the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student or the parent. 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4) (emphasis in original). Based on the District’s response, I find that it has met its burden to redact references to the personally identifiable information of specific students, pursuant to the cited statutes as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. 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). Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. School Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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. 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

John Burke SPR25/0380 Page 5 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). 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. In its January 24th response, the District informed Mr. Cronin that it had redacted: … personally identifying personal and confidential information exempt from disclosure under the M.G.L. c. 4, Section 7(26)(c) privacy exemption: (1) core category confidential personnel information (medical diagnosis), and (2) personal email addresses and telephone numbers of private citizens, not known to be public[.] Based on the District’s response, I find that it has met its burden to redact the personal email addresses and telephone numbers of private citizens, and references to specific medical information, pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Cronin is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Cronin Leslie C. Carey, Esq.