David Groh v. Norwood, Town of (SPR 20250500)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 26, 2025 SPR25/0500 MaryLou Folan Town Clerk Town of Norwood 566 Washington Street, P. O. Box 40 Norwood, MA 02062-0040 Dear Ms. Folan: I have received the petition of David Groh appealing the response of the Town of Norwood (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 11, 2024, Mr. Groh requested “… a list of the participants in the Norwood Senior Tax Write-Off Program for the fiscal year 2024[.]” The Town provided responses on January 14 and 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Groh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0500, 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 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

MaryLou Folan SPR25/0500 Page 2 February 26, 2025 The Town’s January 14th and 21st Responses In its January 14, 2025 response, the Town informed Mr. Groh that there were 23 participants in the Senior Tax Work-Off Program in 2024, for whom the total property tax abatement was $43,705.00. The Town withheld the list of participants as “personal protected information.” In its January 21, 2025 response, the Town further clarified: The specific exemption is G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The senior tax work off program is an income-based program and releasing the personally identifiable information would reveal the income level for lower income elderly seniors and give access to their addresses. Furthermore as some participants have a disability and may have another work on their behalf, this information may reveal that status and thus their disability status. I believe we have provided the total number of participants and the total cost of the program. Current Appeal In his February 18, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Groh contends that the responsive records are subject to disclosure. 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). 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).

MaryLou Folan SPR25/0500 Page 3 February 26, 2025 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 not clear how the responsive records, in their entirety, 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. Id. Further, the Town did not provide information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. Please note that public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy in matters relating to their public employment. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987). The Town must clarify these matters. The Town must also clarify whether segregable portions of the responsive records may be provided. 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Groh 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. Mr. Groh may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Groh Tony Mazzucco