Cory Bombredi v. Phillipston, Town of (SPR 20250965)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 24, 2025 SPR25/0965 Peter Morin Interim Chief Administrative Officer Town of Phillipston 50 The Common Phillipston, MA 01331 Dear Mr. Morin: I have received the petition of Cory Bombredi appealing the response of the Town of Phillipston (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 11, 2025, Mr. Bombredi requested: [1] Payroll records for [an identified individual] between September 1, 2019, and his retirement from the town of Phillipston, MA. [2] A copy of the fire department study referenced in the August 14, 2019, Select Board meeting. [3] A final copy of the investigation report produced by [an identified individual’s] investigation into the Fire Department after ongoing internal reports of missing equipment, missing files and altered reports. [4] A list of employees between the months of July 2019 and April 2020 that were out on administrative leave or investigatory suspension. On January 13, 2025, Mr. Bombredi modified the first item of his request to seek “payroll records to reflect the dates of September 1, 2018, to [an identified individual’s] retirement for ‘medical reasons.’” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/0278 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 31, 2025) and SPR25/0485 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 4, 2025). In my March 4th determination, I encouraged Mr. Bombredi and the 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

Peter Morin SPR25/0965 Page 2 April 24, 2025 Town to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Subsequently, the Town responded on April 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Bombredi petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0965, 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. 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Bombredi requests that this office do the following: 1. Order immediate production of the John Flick investigation report, with minimal redactions if necessary. 2. Require the Town to either (a) produce the document or (b) file a loss report under M.G.L. c. 66, § 15. 3. Investigate whether KP Law is improperly advising the Town to withhold public records. 4. Compel the Town to comply with its obligations under Massachusetts Public Records Law. 5. Acknowledge that the Town’s failure to inform me of my appeal rights constitutes a legal violation. The Town’s April 8th Response In its April 8, 2025 response, the Town provided records of “payroll information” responsive to Item 1 of the request. Regarding Item 2 of the request, the Town stated that it “was not able to identify a fire department study to which [Mr. Bombredi] referred.” Regarding Items

Peter Morin SPR25/0965 Page 3 April 24, 2025 3 and 4 of the request, the Town states that it is withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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). 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 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 April 8th response, under Exemption (c), the Town argues the following for withholding records responsive to Items 3 and 4 of the request:

Peter Morin SPR25/0965 Page 4 April 24, 2025 The Town is not providing you with a copy of the requested investigation report. Pursuant to the advice of legal counsel, the Town believes this record falls under Exemption C of the Public Records law which covers “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...” G.L. c.4 section 7(26)(c). Massachusetts courts have previously determined in a number of cases that personnel documentation such as the report you seek is “absolutely exempt from disclosure” Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792,799, 802 (2000). Moreover, courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld from disclosure. See Worcester Telegram&Gazette v. Chief of Police of Worcester 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1,5 (2003). Providing the document you request would place the Town in jeopardy of legal action by a former employee for violating his right to privacy. The Town believes your request for a list of employees placed on administrative leave or investigatory suspension also will be denied under exemption (c). Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the “investigation report” and “list of employees placed on administrative leave or investigatory suspension” constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain 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. Also, the Town did not provide 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Bombredi 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. Mr. Bombredi may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Peter Morin SPR25/0965 Page 5 April 24, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cory Bombredi