Christopher Rizzo v. Seekonk, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20250801)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 3, 2025 SPR25/0801 Shawn E. Cadime Town Administrator Town of Seekonk 100 Peck Street Seekonk, MA 02771 Dear Mr. Cadime: I have received the petition of Christopher Rizzo appealing the response of the Town of Seekonk (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 20, 2025, Mr. Rizzo requested the following: Reviews going back to 2022 for the following town officials. In the case of a committee review I would like the review of each committee member: [1] Town Administrator [2] Police Chief [3] Fire Chief [4] Library Director [5] Human Services Director [6] DPW Superintendent [7] Town Planner [8] Communications Director [9] Animal Control Officer [10] Veterans Agent [11] Director of Finance [12] Parks and Rec Director [13] Emergency Management Director The Town provided a response on March 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Rizzo petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0801, 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

Shawn E. Cadime SPR25/0801 Page 2 April 3, 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) (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…”); 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). 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 4th Response In its March 4, 2025 response, the Town stated, “. . . please be advised that the Town does possess documents responsive to [the] request” and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Rizzo “strongly reject[s]” the Town’s claim of Exemption (c) to deny his request. He states, “[t]he purpose of the request is to independently review the ability of our town to evaluate/terminate personnel and its associated risks. . . .” 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).

Shawn E. Cadime SPR25/0801 Page 3 April 3, 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. 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. School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Finance, 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). 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). This exemption requires 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 4, 2025 response, the Town stated the following regarding its claims under Exemption (c) for withholding the responsive records: In this case, the Town has carefully considered the information requested in light of exemption (c), and considered the factors set forth in [Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798]. After this careful, individualized review, the Town has determined that the responsive records relate to employees’ personnel information and, as such, the documents are being withheld at this time pursuant to exemption (c) to protect the privacy and reputational interests of the employees.

Shawn E. Cadime SPR25/0801 Page 4 April 3, 2025 Although the Town indicates that the records “. . . relate to employees’ personnel information[,]” it is unclear how the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the withheld records, in their entirety, 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. The Town must clarify these matters. Further, the Town did not identify the records it possesses that are responsive to the request. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Consequently, the Town must identify the records it withheld under Exemption (c). As a result, I find that the Town did not meet its burden of specificity in withholding the records in their entirety under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Rizzo with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of the 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. Rizzo may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Rizzo