Collin Dias v. Fall River, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20251986)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 21, 2025 SPR25/1986 Debra Cabral Records Access Officer Fall River Public Schools 417 Rock Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Cabral: I have received the petition of Collin Dias appealing the response of the Fall River Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 27, 2025, Mr. Dias requested the following: 1. Any investigative report made into [a named individual] (I understand I have an unredacted copy, I am making this request as a citizen so I know what the administration believes is allowed to be shared with the public, and so I can appeal any unlawful redactions officially) 2. Any investigative report made into conduct of [a named individual] 3. Any complaint filed by [a named individual] against [three other named individuals] 4. Any complaint filed against [three named individuals] 5. Any report or complaint concerning a staff member having a relationship with a student that was most recently brought to the administrations attention by [a named individual.] The School responded on June 11, June 23, and July 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Mr. Dias petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1986, 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 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

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 2 July 21, 2025 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 11th, June 23rd, and July 3rd Responses In its June 11, June 23, and July 3, 2025 responses, the School provides numerous records in redacted form, and cites Exemptions (a), (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, and the attorney-client privilege for redacting responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). 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, 154 (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 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.

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 3 July 21, 2025 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) FERPA is a federal statute and provides in pertinent part: No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a)) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization . . . 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1). (4)(A) For the purposes of this section, the term “education records” means, except as may be provided otherwise in subparagraph (B), those records, files, documents, and other materials which-- (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A). Massachusetts Student Records Regulations Additionally, in its response, the School cites G. L. c. 71, § 34D and 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4), which provide in pertinent parts as follows: The board of education shall adopt regulations relative to the maintenance, retention, duplication, storage and periodic destruction of student records by the public elementary and secondary schools of the commonwealth. Such rules and regulations shall provide that a parent or guardian of any pupil shall be allowed to inspect academic, scholastic, or any other records concerning such pupil which are kept or are required to be kept. G. L. c. 71, § 34D. Student Record shall consist of the Transcript and the Temporary Record, including all information--recording and computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche, or any other materials--regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student’s name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the Commonwealth. The term as used in 603 CMR 23.00 shall mean all such information and materials regardless of where they are located, except for the information and materials specifically exempted by 603 CMR 23.04.

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 4 July 21, 2025 603 C.M.R. 23.02 (emphasis in original). Access of Third Parties. Except for the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(4)(a) through 23.07(4)(h), no third party shall have access to information in or from a student record without the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student or the parent. 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4). 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). First clause 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.

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 5 July 21, 2025 Second clause Analysis under the second clause of 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 clause 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). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires 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. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by-

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 6 July 21, 2025 case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Exemption (f) is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of complainants and voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979); Bougas, 371 Mass. at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his [or her] career.” Id. at 438. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Item 1 In its July 3rd response, the School argues the following for redacting a report responsive to Item 1 of the request under the attorney-client privilege: Portions of the document(s) responsive to this request are redacted in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), the privacy exemption, as well as the attorney-client privilege exemption. The document(s) responsive to Request 1, specifically an investigative report made regarding [an identified individual], was prepared by

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 7 July 21, 2025 Attorney Robert Hillman, consulting attorney to the Fall River School Committee. There was an attorney-client relationship between the School Committee and Attorney Hillman, and the documents include communications between the School Committee and Attorney Hillman that meet the elements established in Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444 (2007), namely: (1) the communications were received from the client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his capacity as such; (2) the communications were made in confidence; and (3) the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. The Fall River School Committee contracted with Attorney Hillman for the purpose of conducting an impartial investigation of conduct of a School Committee member and for providing the School Committee with a legal opinion on whether any violations of District policies occurred. The School Committee chose to hire an outside attorney, in lieu of using the District’s attorneys, to prevent any conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest. The documents themselves evidence the attorney-client relationship: “... the School Committee engaged the services of Valerio Dominello & Hillman, LLC ...” Communications between Attorney Hillman and the School Committee were made during the course of the School Committee’s search for legal advice. “The attorney-client privilege shields from the view of third parties all confidential communications between a client and its attorney undertaken for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” Suffolk Constr. Co., 449 Mass. at 448. In its pursuit of the legal opinions of Attorney Hillman, the School Committee provided Attorney Hillman with specific information regarding allegations that had been made, including specific incident report(s), relevant evidence, and the identity of individual employees who may have had relevant information (parties and potential witnesses). All of these communications to Attorney Hillman were made for the sole purpose of obtaining legal advice. The communications were made in confidence to Attorney Hillman, so that the School Committee could obtain an impartial and accurate legal assessment. No additional parties were provided with the information provided to Attorney Hillman. Witnesses interviewed by Attorney Hillman were directed to maintain confidentiality as well. Additionally, at no time did the School Committee waive the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, proactive steps were taken to ensure the confidentiality of the document, including convening the School Committee in Executive Session to review the document in its entirety, and distributing the documents to the School Committee members during open session only in redacted form. See Matter of the Reorganization of Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. Ltd. (Bermuda), 425 Mass. 419, 423 (1997). In this case, although portions of the report were redacted, the School has left intact the information required under G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a), including the date, the names of the author and recipients, and information regarding the subject of the report. Based on the information included

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 8 July 21, 2025 in the report, and the explanation provided in the School’s July 3rd response, I find that the School has met its burden to redact the report pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. In its July 3rd response, the School argues the following for redacting the report responsive to Item 1 of the request under Exemption (c): The document responsive to this request is an investigative report regarding allegations of inappropriate conduct of a member of the School Committee; this document also contains information regarding allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct by specifically named school employees and specific personnel information regarding those employees, including employment-related decisions made by the District related to allegations of inappropriate conduct. Disclosure of such information included in the report would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities regarding all three (3) individuals named in the report, given that the there is an allegation of inappropriate conduct in their official capacity either as an employee of the district, or in their official capacity as a member of the School Committee. Additionally, the documents contain highly sensitive information regarding other district employees as it relates to the investigation conducted by the District. This information is not publicly available; only a redacted copy of the report was provided to School Committee Members for use during the Open Session portion of the School Committee meeting at which the responsive document was discussed. The individual employees who file complaints with the District have a vital interest in maintaining the confidentiality of their pursuit of an investigation into those claims. The complaint and investigation process was conducted in confidence. The disclosure of a specifically named individual’s identity could jeopardize their pursuit of other employment. Specifically, included in these documents are details about employment status and other personal details of specifically named employees, which the Supreme Judicial Court has deemed to be the type of information that qualifies as “intimate details of a highly personal nature.” Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t., 380 Mass. 623, 626, n.2 (1980). The public interest in disclosure of this information does not substantially outweigh the employees’ privacy interests. See Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). An individual complaint and/or complaint information could result in personal embarrassment. Indeed, the harm caused by disclosing such sensitive information to the public would entail not only embarrassment to individual employees, but also the creation of a clear disincentive to future voluntary participation in internal employment investigations in the public sector. Because the responsive documents contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, portions of the documents that would reveal the identities of the witnesses or intimate details of a highly personal nature are withheld in accordance with Exemption (c). The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh these privacy

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 9 July 21, 2025 interests, as disclosure would chill future cooperation in employee conduct investigations. Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). Under Exemption (f), the School argues the following for redacting the report responsive to Item 1 under Exemption (f): In this case, disclosure of the statements of persons who volunteered information to Attorney Hillman as part of this investigation would have a harmful and chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to cooperate in such future investigations. Accordingly, those witness statements are withheld in accordance with Exemption (f). Where the School has met the burden to redact the report responsive to Item 1 under the attorney-client privilege, I find it is unnecessary to address the School’s claims under Exemptions (c) and (f) for redacting the report responsive to Item 1 of the request. Item 2 With regard to Item 2 of the request, the School argues the following for redacting responsive records under Exemption (c): The documents responsive to this request contain an investigative report and supporting documentation regarding allegations of workplace misconduct and employment related status, of a specifically named employee. The documents also contain highly sensitive information regarding other district employees as it relates to the investigation conducted by the District. This information is not available from other sources. The individual employees who file complaints with the District have a vital interest in maintaining the confidentiality of their pursuit of an investigation into those claims. The complaint and investigation process was conducted in confidence. The disclosure of a specifically named individual’s identity could jeopardize their pursuit of other employment. Specifically, included in these documents are details about family status, marital status, family disputes, and other personal details of specifically named employees, all of which the Supreme Judicial Court has deemed to be the type of information that qualifies as “intimate details of a highly personal nature.” Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t., 380 Mass. 623, 626, n.2 (1980). The public interest in disclosure of this information does not substantially outweigh the employees’ privacy interests. See Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). An individual complaint and/or complaint information could result in personal embarrassment. Indeed, the harm caused by disclosing such sensitive information to the public would entail not only embarrassment to individual employees, but also the creation of a clear disincentive to future voluntary participation in internal employment investigations in the public sector. Because the responsive documents contain intimate details of a highly personal nature,

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 10 July 21, 2025 portions of the documents that would reveal the identities of the witnesses or are intimate details of a highly personal nature are withheld in accordance with Exemption (c). The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh these privacy interests, as disclosure would chill future cooperation in employee conduct investigations. Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). The School argues the following for redacting the records responsive to Item 2 of the request under Exemption (f): In this case, disclosure of the statements of persons who volunteered information as part of this investigation would have a harmful and chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to cooperate in such future investigations. Accordingly, those witness statements are withheld in accordance with Exemption (f). Items 3 and 4 In its response, the School argues the following for redacting records responsive to Items 3 and 4 of the request pursuant to Exemption (c): The documents responsive to Requests Nos. 3 and 4 include documentation of allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct made by a district employee. The documents also contain highly sensitive information regarding district employees as it relates to the investigation conducted by the District. This information is not publicly available from other sources. The individual employees who file complaints with the District and those who are named as witnesses have a vital interest in maintaining the confidentiality of their pursuit of an investigation into those claims. The complaint and investigation process was conducted in confidence. The disclosure of a specifically named individual’s identity could jeopardize their pursuit of other employment. Specifically, included in these documents are details about family status, marital status, family disputes, and other personal details of specifically named employees, all of which the Supreme Judicial Court has deemed to be the type of information that qualifies as “intimate details of a highly personal nature.” Attorney Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t., 380 Mass. 623,626, n.2 (1980). The public interest in disclosure of this information does not substantially outweigh the employees’ privacy interests. See Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 3 77 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). An individual complaint and/or complaint information could result in personal embarrassment. Indeed, the harm caused by disclosing such sensitive information to the public would entail not only embarrassment to individual employees, but also the creation of a clear disincentive to future voluntary participation in internal employment investigations in the public sector. Because the responsive documents contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, portions of the documents that would reveal the identities of the witnesses or intimate details of a highly personal nature are withheld in accordance with Exemption (c). The public

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 11 July 21, 2025 interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh these privacy interests, as disclosure would chill future cooperation in employee conduct investigations. Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). Under Exemption (f), the Town argues the following for redacting records responsive to Items 3 and 4 of the request: In this case, disclosure of the statements of persons who volunteered information as part of this investigation would have a harmful and chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to cooperate in such future investigations. Accordingly, those witness statements are withheld in accordance with Exemption (f). Item 5 In its response, the School argues the following for redacting records responsive to Item 5 of the request pursuant to FERPA, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law: Documents responsive to Request No. 5 are redacted in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), the statutory exemption. The records are redacted as being specifically, or by necessary implication, exempted by statutes related to student records. M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G.L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 34E; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (“Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act”). Some of the records are, or are derived from, educational records. . . . While some of the records in and of themselves are not educational records, they contain portions that are directly derived from the educational records of students, and these records are maintained by the District as educational records. . . . Because the records you have requested are, or contain information that is derived from, educational records, as defined under FERPA, if the District were to reveal such information in violation of FERPA, it would risk losing federal funding under any government program. See U.S.C. § 1232g (b)(1). The District is also prohibited from releasing to any individual, agency, or organization personally identifiable information of students. See U.S.C. § 1232g (b)(1). As defined by FERPA, “personally identifiable information” includes, but is not limited to: (a) the student’s name; (b) the name of the student's parent or other family members; (c) the address of the student or student's family; (d) a personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; ( e) other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; (f) other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 12 July 21, 2025 circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. In addition to explicit personal identifiable information, the records contain information that is linked or linkable to specific students that would allow a reasonable person in the school community to identify the student with reasonable certainty. Even if the District were to redact the students’ names from the responsive documents, it would still be a violation of FERPA for the District to provide the record, because the “student’s identity may be personally identifiable, even after removal or redaction of nominally identifiable information.” See Letter to Anonymous, Family Policy Compliance Office, April 9, 2015. Therefore, on that basis, the records are redacted. Additionally, the School argues the following for redacting records responsive to Item 5 of the request under Exemption (c): The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13. Reputation is clearly at stake in the present matter, as the requested records extend to allegations of sexual misconduct whether substantiated or not. Disclosure of information related to an allegation of employee sexual misconduct, including investigative information, outcome, remedies, and/or discipline, does not pass the balancing test of the public’s right to know versus the relevant privacy interests. The position that all teacher disciplinary matters should be disclosed because teachers are public employees “placed in an inherent position of public trust” was “a policy consideration rejected by the Legislature.” Wakefield Teachers Association, 431 Mass. at 802 n. 18. The requested records center on claims - substantiated or not - of sexual misconduct between a teacher and a student. The material contains highly personal information regarding allegations that would undoubtedly result in personal embarrassment to the alleged perpetrator, complainant, and witnesses involved. There is no more highly personal information than a complaint and investigative material related to allegations of sexual misconduct. Further, relevant information is available from other sources. In recognition of the public interest in knowing whether public employees are serving the public appropriately, the criminal trial process provides an avenue for the public to be informed about misconduct within its schools. Through the criminal process, the public can be informed in a way that satisfies the public interest but does not invade the privacy interest in personnel files. The public can also access licensing decisions through the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education database.

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 13 July 21, 2025 As a result, the public interest in the disclosure of the personnel records related to claims of sexual misconduct does not substantially outweigh the privacy interests of the staff, the student, or the participating witnesses, and the records will be redacted in accordance with G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). See Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 156 (1979). When the information is within the context of allegations of sexual misconduct, the public interest does not outweigh the highly personal information and high possibility of personal embarrassment. First, even allegations that are unsubstantiated can result in significant prejudice and embarrassment to both a complainant and a respondent. Additionally, to the extent that allegations are substantiated, as noted above, there are other public avenues for the public to be informed as to the conduct of its public employees, namely the criminal process and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education licensing database. The School argues the following under Exemption (f) for redacting records responsive to Item 5 of the request: In this case, disclosure of the statements of persons who volunteered information as part of this investigation would have a harmful and chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to cooperate in such future investigations. Accordingly, those witness statements are withheld in accordance with Exemption (f). In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) claims made by the School to redact the records responsive to Items 2 through 5 of the request, the School must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the records responsive to Items 2 through 5 for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the School’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a

Debra Cabral SPR25/1986 Page 14 July 21, 2025 promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the records responsive to Items 2 through 5 of the request for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Collin Dias