Sparr Risher v. Worcester County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20252201)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 5, 2025 SPR25/2201 Anna Laukaitis Public Records Access Officer Worcester County Sherriff’s Office 5 Paul X. Tivnan Drive West Boylston, MA 01583 Dear Ms. Laukaitis: I have received the petition of Clarence Risher appealing the response of the Worcester County Sherriff’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 6, 2025, Mr. Risher requested the following: [1] [R]ecords of the following dates for each Deputy of the Worcester County Sheriff, present or past: 1. appointment as Deputy 2. swearing in as Deputy 3. end of appointment, after which the person was no longer a Deputy 4. start of any employment while appointed as Deputy 5. end of any employment while appointed as Deputy [2] [R]ecords uniquely identifying each such Deputy (e.g. name, badge number) and unambiguously associating them with the dates in question. [3] [R]ecords identifying the employer for any employment of a Deputy. [4] [R]ecords of the reason and/or method (termination, resignation, retirement, etc) for the end of each appointment and/or employment. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2127 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25, 2025). In my July 25th determination, I ordered the Office to clarify whether it possessed additional responsive records and encouraged Mr. Risher and the 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

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2201 Page 2 August 5, 2025 Office to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The Office responded on July 25, 2025 and July 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s responses, Mr. Risher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2201, 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 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 Office’s July 25th and July 28th Responses In its July 25, 2025 response, the Office stated, “[o]ther than the records previously provided to Mr. Risher on July 18 and 21, 2025, the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office is not in possession, custody or control of any additional responsive records.” After Mr. Risher sought clarification of the Office’s July 25th response, the Office responded on July 28, 2025, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Office also stated, “[t]he Deputy Sheriff list provided to the requestor is the only list that Worcester County Sheriff’s Office compiles. Moreover, the information that the requestor seeks is not included in the Deputy Sheriff spreadsheet.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Risher stated, “[a]s [the Office] has declined to clarify regarding multiple of the categories of records described in my most recent email, each of which would be responsive to my original request, please consider this my request to further appeal [the] responses as not complying with the previous determination.”

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2201 Page 3 August 5, 2025 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 – 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 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. 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).

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2201 Page 4 August 5, 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. Under Exemption (c), the Office stated, “[t]o the extent the requestor seeks personnel information and/or protected personal information (dates of birth, social security numbers) of WCSO employees that information would be exempt under exemption (c).” Based on the Office’s responses, it is unclear how the Office may withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the Office has not established how any withheld records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. The Office also has not established how any 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 Office 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 Office has not met its burden to withhold responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additionally, although the Office states, “the Deputy Sheriff list provided to the requestor is the only list that Worcester County Sheriff’s Office compiles,” it remains unclear from the Office’s responses whether it is withholding responsive records regarding the “information that the requestor seeks [that] is not included in the Deputy Sheriff spreadsheet.” 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 Office must identify the records it has in its possession that it intends to withhold 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 Office must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Risher with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2201 Page 5 August 5, 2025 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. Risher may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Clarence Risher