Sunshine for All v. Mohawk Trail Regional School District (SPR 20250889)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2025 SPR25/0889 Shana Garcia Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Mohawk Trail Regional School District 24 Ashfield Road Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Dear Ms. Garcia: I have received the petition of Sunshine for All (requestor) appealing the response of the Mohawk Trail Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 24, 2025, the requestor sought the following: [1] The contract or in-kind agreement that stipulated or provided for [an identified individual’s] ability to teach the forensic science class covered in [an identified] Greenfield Recorder article dated November 3, 2024[;] [2] The documents released as a result of the in camera review ordered by the supervisor of records on February 21, 2025, in the SPR25/0381 appeal. The District provided a response on March 31, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0889, 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also 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

Shana Garcia SPR25/0889 Page 2 April 14, 2025 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 the appeal petition, the requestor claims that “[t]he District has not met the burden of specificity required in a denial of access to public records.” The requestor states, “the District did not explain how exemption (c) applies” and how “M.G.L. c. 150E applies” to the responsive records. The requestor additionally contends, “[t]he District does not directly employ [the individual identified in the request]; therefore, [this individual] cannot be part of a bargaining unit.” The District’s March 31st Response In its March 31, 2025 response, the District cites Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to

Shana Garcia SPR25/0889 Page 3 April 14, 2025 a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its March 31st response, the District cites M.G.L. c. 150E (the Massachusetts public employee collective bargaining law) in support of withholding the responsive records. The District explains, “the requested information does not fall under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 150E as [the requestor is] not the labor organization representing the bargaining unit. Accordingly, the obligations outlined in Chapter 150E do not apply to this request.” Based on the District’s response, it is unclear how the above-cited statute specifically or by necessary implication permit the District to withhold the responsive records from disclosure. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, said statute or regulation must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. 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). 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). 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

Shana Garcia SPR25/0889 Page 4 April 14, 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). 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 31st response, the District advises that it is “. . .unable to release the requested information due to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 4, s. 7(26th)(c) as the information related to specifically identified employees and would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Although the District indicates in its response that the records comprise “information related to specifically identified employees[,]” 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 not clear how the 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 also uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the District 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. It is additionally unclear from the District’s response what type of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. 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 . . .”). Therefore, the District must identify the type of records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemptions (a) and (c). Further, the District must clarify whether segregable portions of the records can be provided. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The District must clarify. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide the requestor 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

Shana Garcia SPR25/0889 Page 5 April 14, 2025 office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sunshine for All