Damir Davis v. Clinton, Town of- Town Clerk (SPR 20250703)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2025 SPR25/0703 Holly P. Sargent Town Clerk Town of Clinton 242 Church Street Clinton, MA 01510 Dear Ms. Sargent: I have received the petition of Damir Davis appealing the response of the Town of Clinton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 19, 2025, Mr. Davis requested: [1] Business Database – Any email lists associated with business licenses, registrations, permits, business tax filings, or economic development programs[;] [2] Dog Licensing Database – Any email lists associated with dog licenses, kennel permits, or other animal control related communications[;] [3] Election Worker Database – Any email lists of current or past election workers, including poll workers, election officials, and other individuals engaged in election administration[;] [4] Website Subscriber List – Any email lists of individuals subscribed to municipal newsletters, emergency alerts, website notifications, or general updates[;] [5] Boards and Committees Database – Any email lists of members of municipal boards, commissions, and committees, including appointed and elected officials[;] [6] Recreation and Community Programs – Any email lists of individuals registered for municipal recreation programs, senior center activities, youth programs, or community events[;] [7] Taxpayer Email List – Any email lists associated with property tax notifications, excise tax billing, or water/sewer billing notifications[;] [8] Library and Cultural Services – Any email lists related to library cardholders, cultural programs, historical society updates, or educational initiatives. The Town responded on February 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Davis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0703, was opened as a result. 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

Holly P. Sargent SPR25/0703 Page 2 March 25, 2025 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. The Town’s February 27th Response In its February 27, 2025 response, the Town withheld responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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

Holly P. Sargent SPR25/0703 Page 3 March 25, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the Town stated, “I have received your public records request and will not be able to provide the email records [due] to the exemption (c) of Public Records Law.” The Town is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatly, 419 Mass. at 511. The Town’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the withheld 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 Town did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. As a result, I find that the Town did not meet its burden of specificity in withholding the records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Davis 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Damir Davis