Megan Stewart v. Cohasset, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20251391)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 29, 2025 SPR25/1391 Elisabeth Legge Town Clerk Town of Cohasset 41 Highland Avenue Cohasset, MA 02025 Dear Ms. Legge: I have received the petition of Megan Stewart appealing the response of the Town of Cohasset (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 4, 2025, Ms. Stewart requested: [An identified individual’s] full personnel file under M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C, including any and all documentation related to complaints, performance, investigations, or materials used in any employment decision. This includes third- party statements, reports, communications, or internal notes referenced in relation to this leave or any employment-related review, whether past or present. The Town responded on May 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Stewart petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1391, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a supplemental response on May 16, 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 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

Elisabeth Legge SPR25/1391 Page 2 May 29, 2025 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. The Town’s May 15th Response In its May 15, 2025 response, the Town provided Ms. Stewart with redacted copies of the requested records. Current Appeal In her May 16, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Stewart characterized the Town’s response as a denial of her request, and sought unredacted versions of the requested records. Ms. Stewart further alleged that the Town had violated the Open Meeting Law. In its May 16, 2025 response, the Town clarified that Ms. Stewart had been provided with the full personnel file sought in her request. The Town further clarified that the only information it was withholding from disclosure were social security numbers, redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Open Meeting Law Ms. Stewart’s petition raises issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. 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.

Elisabeth Legge SPR25/1391 Page 3 May 29, 2025 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. Based on its May 15th and 16th responses, where the Town has redacted social security numbers from the responsive records, I find that the Town has met its burden to redact such information pursuant to Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Stewart 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).

Elisabeth Legge SPR25/1391 Page 4 May 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Megan Stewart Meaghan James