Ada Zhong v. Westwood, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20252054)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 25, 2025 SPR25/2054 Molly Fitzpatrick Deputy Town Administrator Town of Westwood 580 High Street Westwood, MA 02090 Dear Ms. Fitzpatrick: I have received the petition of Ada Zhong appealing the response of the Town of Westwood (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 20, 2025, Ms. Zhong requested, “…all applications or related documents for the current members of the Westwood Finance and Warrant Commission.” Specifically Ms. Zhong sought: [1] All applications, resumes, letters of interest, or any other documents submitted by individuals currently serving as members of the Finance and Warrant Commission. [2] Any related correspondence or records pertaining to their appointment to the Commission. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2023 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 15, 2025). In my July 15th determination, I closed SPR25/2023 in light of the Town providing a response on July 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Zhong petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2054, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, I learned that the Town also provided a response on June 27, 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 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

Molly Fitzpatrick SPR25/2054 Page 2 July 25, 2025 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Zhong’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. The Town’s June 27th and July 14th Responses In its June 27, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[t]hese documents will not be provided as they are protected under the privacy exemption.” In its July 14, 2025 response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and stated: Ms. Zhong has submitted multiple public records request, and multiple appeals with the Public Records Division, regarding this topic. As explained previously, the authority to appoint members to the Finance and Warrant Commission rests exclusively with the elected Town Moderator [who] does not maintain an office at Town hall, nor does he report to any appointed official. Ms. Zhong has been instructed to reach out to the Moderator specifically regarding this request.

Molly Fitzpatrick SPR25/2054 Page 3 July 25, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Zhong stated, “[m]y request does not seek any personal or exempt information that would legitimately fall under Exemption (c) without proper redaction and justification.” On July 23, 2025, Ms. Zhong provided this office with the following supplemental information: On May 20, 2025, I submitted an application to [the] Town Moderator… to volunteer for the Commission. I followed up with emails on May 29 and June 4, 2025, addressed to both [the Town Moderator] and [the] Town Clerk... Despite these efforts, I received no reply or acknowledgment. Eventually, I was sent a denial letter—without being contacted for an interview or receiving any other communication regarding my application… Given this, I believe that requesting these records is essential to ensure transparency and public accountability in the Town’s appointment process. 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). 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).

Molly Fitzpatrick SPR25/2054 Page 4 July 25, 2025 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. In its July 14, 2025 response, the Town recited the language of Exemption (c) and stated, “…certain exemptions may apply to the request.” Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the Town may withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Town has not established how the withheld records, in their entirety, contain intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Town must also provide information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Consequently, the Town has not met its burden to withhold responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additionally, the Town did not identify the responsive records it possesses that it intends to withhold. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Therefore, the Town must identify the records it has in its possession that the Town withheld under Exemption (c). It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Zhong 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. Ms. Zhong may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Molly Fitzpatrick SPR25/2054 Page 5 July 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ada Zhong Dottie Powers