Olufunmilola Shelly v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20252294)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 15, 2025 SPR25/2294 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 Olufunmilola Shelly 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 May 14, 2025, Ms. Shelly requested “[a]ny signed NDA entered into by [an identified individual] between 3/1/2024 and present.” Prior Appeals and In Camera Review This request was the subject of prior appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/1532 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 9, 2025) and SPR25/1810 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (July 7, 2025; July 28, 2025). In my July 28th determination, I found that the City had not met its burden to justify all of its redactions to the responsive record under the personnel clause of Exemption (c). The City responded on August 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Shelly petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2294, 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). 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 SPR25/2294 Page 2 August 15, 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. 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 City’s August 1st Response In its August 1, 2025 response, the City provided Ms. Shelly with a copy of the requested record. In a previous response on June 24, 2025, the City informed Ms. Shelly that the requested record was redacted “… in accordance with Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. And Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013)[,]” pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her August 4, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Shelly requested that the City be ordered to produce a “line-by-line redaction key.” 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 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2294 Page 3 August 15, 2025 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. Settlement Agreements The controlling case for redactions made to a settlement agreement is Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). In the Globe decision, the court listed the following information as properly subject to redaction within a settlement agreement under the personnel clause of Exemption (c): (1) promotion of grade; (2) compensation at a different salary grade; (3) adjustment in compensation; (4) waiver of bumping rights and/or recall rights; (5) entitlement to remain on administrative leave; (6) requirement to tender a letter of resignation; (7) demand of voluntary resignation; (8) reinstatement; (9) layoff; (10) agreement by an agency to remove a letter from a personnel file; (11) agreement by an agency concerning the providing of references and their contents; (12) the requirement that an employee meet with a supervisor to review progress of assigned matters; (13) adjustment of an agency’s records to reflect an employee’s status; (14) adjustment or continuation of employee benefits, such as unemployment assistance, COBRA, and retirement benefits, and agreement regarding back wages; (15) recitations concerning grievances, including agreement to withdraw a grievance and acknowledgment by an employee of the absence of a pending grievance; (16) a statement of resolution of all claims concerning termination of employment and prior disciplinary actions, (17) agreement to turn in agency property, (18) global resolution involving the entering of a nolle prosequi by a prosecutorial official; (19) language affirming an agency’s legitimate concern for discipline and an employee’s receipt of a memorandum of verbal discipline; and (20) completion by an employer of harassment training. Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34-35. Based on the City’s response and the prior in camera review conducted by this office, I find that the City has met its burden to redact the responsive records under the personnel clause

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2294 Page 4 August 15, 2025 of Exemption (c) and the Globe Newspaper Co. decision. See id. at 34-35 (affirming the presumption that separation, severance, transition or settlement agreements are public records, subject to redaction). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Shelly 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Olufunmilola Shelly