Kisla Rami v. Revere, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20250444)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2025 SPR25/0444 Ashley E. Melnik City Clerk City of Revere 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Ms. Melnik: I have received the petition of Kisla Rami appealing the response of the City of Revere (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 5, 2025, Ms. Rami requested: [1] Copies of all service requests, complaints, or reports submitted under [an identified username] on the 311 Revere website related to [a specified address], including but not limited to: SR #56336 … SR #56337 … [2] Any responses, follow-ups, resolutions, or inspections conducted by the City of Revere in connection with these complaints … [3] [A]ny metadata associated with these service requests … The City provided a response on February 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rami petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0444, 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

Ashley E. Melnik SPR25/0444 Page 2 February 25, 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. 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. The City’s February 6th Response In its February 6, 2025 response, the City responded to Ms. Rami as follows: [1] The contact information of the submitter has been redacted on #56337 citing exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. It is the City’s position that anyone who files a complaint has an expectation of privacy. By releasing a complainant’s information, the City believes this will deter residents from using the 311 system. The City wants to encourage residents to use the 311 complaint system, not deter them. Request #56336 was submitted anonymously. [2] Any records for [a specified address] from 20178 [sic] to present are found online via CitizenServe. Any records prior to 2018 are attached in the zip folder. [3] The City does not have any records responsive to this request. Current Appeal In her February 14, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rami asserts that the City has improperly cited Exemption (c) to justify its redactions, and that disclosure of the redacted information is in the public interest. 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).

Ashley E. Melnik SPR25/0444 Page 3 February 25, 2025 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 City’s response, it is not clear how an individual’s name and home address constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also not clear if this information is available from other sources. The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Rami 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. Rami may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kisla Rami