David Groh v. Norwood, Town of (SPR 20250739)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2025 SPR25/0739 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[.]” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/0500 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 26, 2025). In my February 26th determination, I found that the Town had not met its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Town provided a response on March 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Groh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0739, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a supplemental response on March 18, 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). 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 SPR25/0739 Page 2 March 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 Town’s March 7th Response In its March 7, 2025 response, the Town informed Mr. Groh that it was providing him with segregable portions of the responsive records, and redacting the identifying information of private individuals pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In its March 18, 2025 response, the Town provided Mr. Groh with redacted copies of the responsive records, which it had inadvertently omitted from its previous response. Current Appeal In his March 17, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Groh contends that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest at stake. 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

MaryLou Folan SPR25/0739 Page 3 March 25, 2025 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). 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 March 7, 2025 response, the Town stated: Here, the disclosure of the identity of participants in the Town’s Senior Tax Write-Off Program would cause a very serious invasion of privacy to those individuals which far outweighs any public interest in the information. In fact, there is no public interest in the identity of program participants. The sole public interest lies in the financial management of the program to ensure that the program is run properly and efficiently, and the Town has provided all such information, including the number of participants, the total abatement amount in its entirety and by individual line, in an effort to be as transparent as possible. The seriousness of the invasion of privacy caused by disclosure of program participants cannot be understated. The Town’s Senior Tax Write-Off Program is a means tested social assistance program providing lower income seniors with a volunteer opportunity to earn an abatement on their taxes for providing in kind services to the Town. The goal of the program is to provide social assistance for low-income seniors, an especially vulnerable population. The program is not even considered income under state law, underscoring that program’s social assistance purpose. Releasing the identity of the seniors participating in the program will create a publicly available list of lower income seniors with their addresses, creating a number of significant policy concerns. First is the damage to the program itself – many participating seniors will no longer participate in the program due to their names being made public and the potential embarrassment that comes with identifying someone participating in a social benefit program, thus defeating its purpose. Because the program is expressly limited to overall income, the status of the senior as having a lower income is immediately made public as they can only

MaryLou Folan SPR25/0739 Page 4 March 25, 2025 participate in the program if they meet income requirements. This is different from disclosing the identity and income of Town employees where the public interest in municipal fiscal management outweighs the privacy interests of municipal employees. Singling out seniors under this income qualified program discriminates against these particular vulnerable populations participating in a social assistance program in Norwood. Furthermore, with the rampant and growing number of scams targeting seniors and other vulnerable populations creating and publicly distributing a single list of names and addresses of lower income seniors will place this at risk population at even greater risk of being targeted by scams, fraud, and potential abuse … Furthermore, the identities of program participants is not available from other sources. Based on the Town’s response, where the Town has demonstrated that the public interest in obtaining the requested information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, I find that the Town has met its burden to redact the identifying information of individuals participating in the Senior Tax Write-Off Program. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Groh 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: David Groh James Donnolly, Esq.