Gardner v. Brockton, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20251942)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2025 SPR25/1942 Bou Lim Records Access Officer Brockton Public Schools 43 Crescent Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Mr. Lim: I have received the petition of Mr. Gardner appealing the response of the Brockton Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 9, 2025, Mr. Gardner requested: …the following records related to the hiring process for school police officers within Brockton Public Schools over the past two years: [1] Names of candidates who took the hiring test for school police officers. [2] Test scores for each candidate. [3] Any records or communications related to the test results and subsequent hiring decisions, including but not limited to dates, emails, memos, or other materials that discuss the evaluation process, scoring criteria, or candidate selection. Specifically, I am requesting to verify whether [an identified individual] took the hiring test, and if so, his test results, including his name, score, and any associated records. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1487 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 10, 2025). In my June 10th determination, I ordered the School to clarify its claims to withhold responsive records under Exemption (c) and to identify the records it withheld. The School responded on June 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Gardner petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1942, was opened as a result. 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

Bou Lim SPR25/1942 Page 2 July 17, 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. 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. The School’s June 25th Response In its June 25, 2025 response, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records and clarified, “[t]he category of records withheld includes all requested records[.]” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gardner argued the School’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Lack of specific identification of withheld records… [2] No application of the required balancing test… [3] No segregation or release of non-exempt portions… [4] Refusal to confirm basic, non-intimate information… 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.

Bou Lim SPR25/1942 Page 3 July 17, 2025 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass App Ct 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. at 798. Under Exemption (c), the School stated: [The withheld records] constitute employment applications and/or evaluative materials related to the applications which pertain to particular applicants and which are useful in making employment decisions regarding such applicants. It is well established that employment applications and evaluative materials pertaining to particular employees constitute private personnel information that is absolutely exempt from disclosure under Massachusetts law… The District securely maintains this information in its personnel files and is not aware of this information being available from other public sources. The District will not confirm the identity of any individual who applied for a position in response to a public records request—the Public Records Law does not require the District to answer questions, and this information is exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c) for the same reasons explained herein and in the May 19 letter. In its referenced May 19, 2025 response, the School stated: In addition, the requested employment application information is also exempt under the privacy clause of M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c)… Employment applications, test results, and the other related materials you requested contain information of a highly personal nature, would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities if released, and are not available from other public sources. In particular, applicants have a substantial interest in maintaining their privacy

Bou Lim SPR25/1942 Page 4 July 17, 2025 during the school police hiring process to avoid conflicts in any current employment and potential embarrassment if not ultimately hired. Employees who are hired may have to satisfy a variety of minimum hiring criteria and their test scores may be evaluated as part of that process, but their actual scores are private. Any public interest these materials does not substantially outweigh the privacy interests. Item 1 Although the School indicates that all of the responsive records constitute personnel information, the School has not demonstrated how the names of candidates requested under Item 1 may be withheld. The School has not established how the names of candidates fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. Therefore, the School has not met its burden to withhold the names of candidates under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Item 2 Regarding the test scores requested under Item 2, where the scores constitute evaluative information, I find that such records do fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and are exempt under Exemption (c). Id. 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. Consequently, the School has met its burden to withhold the test scores responsive to Item 2 entirely under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Item 3 Regarding Item 3, please be advised that the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records

Bou Lim SPR25/1942 Page 5 July 17, 2025 regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “any records or communications related to…” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Gardner may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide the records Mr. Gardner seeks. If issues remain after further communication, Mr. Gardner may file a further appeal. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Gardner 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. Gardner may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Gardner