Martha Barrows v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20250835)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 8, 2025 SPR25/0835 Jeanmarie Tarara Town Clerk Town of Holbrook 50 North Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Tarara: I have received the petition of Martha Barrows appealing the response of the Town of Holbrook (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 23, 2024, Ms. Barrows requested the following: [1] email communications to [an identified individual] from the following [identified five email addresses] within the stated time frames[;] [2] email communications to and from [an identified email addresses][;] [3] Randolph-Holbrook Joint Water time sheets for the weeks ending May 20, 2024, June 30, 2024, June 27, 2024, and July 4, 2024[.] Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/3462 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 15, 2025) and SPR25/0398 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 records responsive to Items 1 and 2 under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In addition, I found that with regard to Item 3, to the extent the records contain medical information that relates to a specifically named individual, the Town may permissibly withhold such portions from disclosure under Exemption (c). The Town responded on March 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Barrows petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0835, 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 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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/0835 Page 2 April 8, 2025 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. Current appeal In her March 26, 2025 appeal, Ms. Barrows states, “I would like to initiate a continuing appeal in regards to Item 1) Employee Complaint and Response. [The Town] still contends that the Town intends on withholding the document in its entirety ... I understand that it may be that names are redacted in order to protect ‘personal embarrassment’. However, I do not see how the documents can be withheld in their entirety.” Based on Ms. Barrows’ appeal, this determination will only address Item 1 of the request. The Town’s March 24th response In its March 24, 2025 response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to Item 1. 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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/0835 Page 3 April 8, 2025 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. Sch. 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 Fin., 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. Item 1 - Employee Complaint and Response In its response to Item 1, the Town stated the following: The complaint and response to the complaint meet the criteria for Exemption (c) because they are exempt personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions about the subject employees. Furthermore, to confirm, the entirety of both documents are exempt – revealing information like who it was from, who it was directed to, and the date of its creation would allow the public to identify the subject employees and would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy to the subject employees. The complaint consists of allegations regarding an employee’s behavior at work,

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/0835 Page 4 April 8, 2025 while the response consists of the employee’s response to the allegations. The allegations and responses are useful in making employment decisions about the subject employees, including work evaluations and discipline. The private interest in nondisclosure is very high. As disclosure of the allegations and responses would damage an employee’s reputation and cause personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Moreover, the information is not available from other sources. Furthermore the public interest in the information is low and certainly does not outweigh the seriousness of the invasion of privacy ... In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the exemption claims made by the Town to withhold responsive records from disclosure, the Town must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay.

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/0835 Page 5 April 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Martha Barrows