Erin McCarthy v. Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (SPR 20251218)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 8, 2025 SPR25/1218 Richard Alcorn Executive Director Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School 317 Russell Street Hadley, MA 01035 Dear Director Alcorn: I have received the petition of Erin McCarthy appealing the response of the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 18, 2025, Ms. McCarthy requested “… the seven [Board of Trustees] applications … [and] the seven applicants’ emails that are the submissions of their applications.” The School responded on April 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. McCarthy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1218, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the School provided a supplemental response on May 8, 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); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y 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. 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

Richard Alcorn SPR25/1218 Page 2 May 8, 2025 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 School’s April 26th Response In its April 26, 2025 response, the School provided Ms. McCarthy with responsive records redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. To justify its redactions, the School stated “… personnel email addresses are exempt from disclosure under G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).” Current Appeal In her May 2, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. McCarthy objected to the redaction of an identified individual’s resume on page 19 of the School’s response. In its May 8, 2025 response, the School clarified that the contested redaction contained personnel information exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c). 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.

Richard Alcorn SPR25/1218 Page 3 May 8, 2025 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 May 8, 2025 response, the School stated: In this matter, [the identified individual] is also an employee of the school, as such, the school redacted her certifications that are relevant to her employment status from her resume when responding to your records request. When looking at the balancing test required for exemption c, it must be examined whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. With respect to this redaction, it is the Schools position that all other information relating to her Board application was provided, and her ability to protect her certifications relating to her employment outweighs the public interest in accessing that information. Based on the School’s response, and where the redacted information constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information that are useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, I find that the School has met its burden to redact the responsive records under Exemption (c). In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c).” Id. at 6. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. McCarthy 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).

Richard Alcorn SPR25/1218 Page 4 May 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Erin McCarthy Kathleen Wang