Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20252065)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 30, 2025 SPR25/2065 Paul J. Iversen Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street, Room B-37 Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 30, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested: [1] All retirement documentation for [three identified individudals] including letters of intent, HR communications, and internal emails. [2] Any records reflecting the coordination of these retirements with the Mayor’s Office, Parks and Recreation, or Framingham Police Department. [3] Any documentation explaining the sudden closure of Loring Arena and the disabling of public access utilities (power, bathrooms, water) during the summer of 2024. The City provided a response on July 15, 2025, providing a redacted responsive record. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2065, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a supplemental response on July 25, 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2065 Page 2 July 30, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Mr. Weeks states, “I respectfully request that your office: [o]rder the City of Framingham to produce all responsive records related to the retirements of [three identified individuals], including unredacted HR forms, emails, and retirement letters. Require the City to explain the basis for any redactions applied to the [responsive record provided]. Investigate whether the City has unlawfully withheld records…” The City’s July 15th and July 25th response In its July 15, 2025 response, the City provided a responsive record with the employee number redacted under Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records Law. In its July 25, 2025 response, the City states it redacted the employee number for one of the identified individuals under Exemtpion (c) of the Public Records Law. Also, in a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the City on July 25, 2025, the City confirmed it is not claiming Exemption (o) for withholding the employee number. No Duty to Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the City on July 25, 2025, the City confirmed that it searched for and has found no additional responsive records to Mr. Weeks’ request. Where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Weeks’ request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I find that this portion of Mr. Weeks’ appeal is resolved.

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2065 Page 3 July 30, 2025 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). First Clause – Personnel Information 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. Second Clause – Privacy 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. 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).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2065 Page 4 July 30, 2025 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). 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. In its supplemental response on July 25th the City states: The redacted information in this record is personnel information relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. This information relates to employee work evaluations or termination information. It is not available from other sources. Additionally, the release of the redacted information will shed no light on whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. As a result, the public interest in obtaining the requested information does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the employee number constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” or how it relates to employee work evaluations or termination information. Further, it is unclear how the employee number is an intimate detail of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Also, the City did not provide sufficient 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. As a result, I find that the City did not meet its burden of specificity in redacting the employee number under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Weeks with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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.

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2065 Page 5 July 30, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks