Shelby Lee v. Easthampton, City of (SPR 20252051)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 29, 2025 SPR25/2051 Mary Ann Giza City Clerk City of Easthampton 50 Payson Avenue Easthampton, MA 01027 Dear Ms. Giza: I have received the petition of Shelby Lee, of The Shoestring, appealing the responses of the City of Easthampton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 24, 2025, Mx. Lee requested: [1] Any and all records related to the selection of the “public safety consultants” and their firm, which were hired for Easthampton’s 2024-2025 police chief search[;] [2] Any and all financial documents, including payments and contracts, between the city and the above mentioned firm & selected consultants[;] [3] Any and all candidates names, and their applications, that were reviewed and selected by the firm to be considered for the position. The City responded on June 25 and July 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mx. Lee petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2051, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response on July 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). 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

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2051 Page 2 July 29, 2025 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. 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 City’s June 25th and July 11th Responses In its June 25, 2025 response, the City confirmed receipt of the request and informed Mx. Lee that the request had been forwarded to the proper department. In its July 11, 2025 response, the City stated that public records request must be submitted through its online records request portal. Current Appeal In the July 15, 2025 petition to this office, Mx. Lee objected to the City’s requirement that the request be filed through an online portal. In its July 16, 2025 response, the City provided records responsive to Items 1 and 2 of the request and withheld records responsive to Item 3 of the request under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In an email communication to this office on July 22, 2025, Mx. Lee contended that the cited exemption did not apply to the requested records, particularly given that the City had previously released similar information. 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).

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2051 Page 3 July 29, 2025 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 Corp. 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 Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. 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 Ass’n, 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 Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In its July 16th response, the City stated that the records responsive to Item 3 of the request were exempt personnel information, which includes “… at a minimum, employment applications, work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Based on the City’s responses, and where the requested employment applications constitute one of the core categories of personnel information that are useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, I find that the City has met its burden to withhold 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 Mx. Lee 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).

Mary Ann Giza SPR25/2051 Page 4 July 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shelby Lee Emily Russo