Luke G. Liacos v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20252314)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 21, 2025 SPR25/2314 Paul J. Iversen City Records Access Officer Mayor’s Office Department City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Luke Liacos, Esq., of Krakow, Souris & Landry, LLC, on behalf of the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters, 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 23, 2025, Frank Gomez, of the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters, requested the following records concerning the “Framingham Community Center”: 1. Any and all certified payrolls that you are in possession of from any Contractors Performing Carpentry, Windows, and Glazing for the project reference above it. 2. Copy of any or all clerk logs and or daily reports. 3. Original proposal purchase orders, all billing, change orders, and payments to the vendor for the entire project. The City responded on July 21 and July 23, 2025, and assigned reference number 2025- 2000 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Attorney Liacos petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2314, 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, 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 SPR25/2314 Page 2 August 21, 2025 § 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 City’s July 21st and July 23rd Responses In its July 21 and July 23, 2025 responses, the City provides responsive records in redacted form, and cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2314 Page 3 August 21, 2025 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 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). 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 21st response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: The records were redacted for the personal home addresses of private citizens. These are properly exempted under G. L.c. 4, § 7(26)(c). I have provided an excerpt from page 19 of the Guide to MA Public Records Law . . . that pertains to cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses. The same logic applies to home addresses. We are protecting the privacy interest of these private citizens. In its July 23rd response, the City further elaborates on its claim under Exemption (c) as follows: The City is not comfortable providing the unredacted records absent a

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2314 Page 4 August 21, 2025 determination from the Supervisor to that end. These are the home addresses of private employees. As they are not public employees, they do not have a diminished expectation of privacy relative to this information. This information is not easily available from other sources; if it was, it would make sense that Mr. Gomez would get it from those other sources. Additionally, the release of this information will not shed light on whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. As a result, it does not seem that the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy of these individuals. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Liacos argues the following: In Letter Determination of the Supervisor of Public Records, SPR99/088 (June 10, 1999), the Public Records Division was asked to decide whether G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c) applies to the names and address of employees of a private contractor working on a public project and whether the disclosure of such information would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Your agency held in no uncertain terms that “payroll information such as the employee’s name, home address, gross salary, and deductions related to FICA are public record.” Determination Letter at 2. In reaching this ruling, your agency correctly reasoned that “[a] name and address are not the type of information which an individual would refuse to share with a stranger or which would harm an individual if disclosed,” and therefore “cannot be considered intimate details which are highly personal in nature.” Id. at 5. The Public Records Division further found that its conclusion is supported by the statutory language and intent of G.L. c. 149, §27B, which compels the open disclosure of employees’ names and addresses on certified payroll records. In pertinent part, the statute provides that such “payroll records and statements of compliance shall be available for inspection by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority for such inspection and copying.” G.L. c. 149, §27B. Interpreting Section 27B, this agency has determined that “[t]he statute does not limit the disclosure of certified payroll records, but rather, evidences a legislative intent to make these records available for inspection.” Determination Letter at 4. Critically, the right to inspect extends to citizens. Id. Certified Payroll Records The City is advised that disclosure of certified payroll records is governed by G. L. c. 149, § 27B, which states in relevant part: Every contractor, subcontractor or public body engaged in said public works by an agency ... or municipality or any subdivision thereof to which sections

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2314 Page 5 August 21, 2025 twenty-seven and twenty-seven A apply shall keep a true and accurate record of all mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers employed thereon, showing the name, address and occupational classification of each such employee on said works, and the hours worked by, and the wages paid to, each such employee, and shall submit weekly to the awarding authority by mail, first class postage prepaid, or by electronic mail, certified payroll records that shall consist of a complete copy of those records ... . . . The above-mentioned copies of payroll records and statements of compliance shall be available for inspection by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority for such inspection and copying. G. L. c. 149, § 27B. The statute provides that copies of certified payroll records must be available for inspection and copying by any interested party filing written request to the awarding authority. Id. The statute does not limit disclosure, but rather evidences a legislative intent to make these records available for inspection. Where the language of the statute does not restrict disclosure, the statutory right of citizens to inspect under the Public Records Law prevails. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn et al., 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979) (statute providing that records be available to town officials does not exempt records since statute does not limit disclosure to the public); see also G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) (exempting those records which are specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute). G. L. c. 149, § 27B evidences a legislative intent to make that information which is required to be provided by a contractor to the awarding authority open to public inspection. Further, in a 2002 Superior Court case, a construction company hired for a public construction project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) sought injunctive relief by asserting a privacy claim under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to prevent disclosure of the addresses and telephone numbers of the workers listed on the certified payroll records after the Supervisor of Records issued an order to the MWRA to disclose the records to the requesting party. See D’Amico, Inc., et. al. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No. 0284-CV-00369 (Nov. 6, 2002). In his April 29, 2002 finding, Judge Thomas Conley denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating, “[t]here is very little likelihood, if any, of the plaintiff prevailing in this matter, and there has been no showing of irreparable harm.” Id. In this case, given that the addresses of the individuals who are the subjects of the certified payroll records are public under G. L. c. 149, § 27B, the City may not withhold this information under Exemption (c) or any of the exemptions enumerated in the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2314 Page 6 August 21, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Liacos 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. Attorney Liacos may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Luke Liacos, Esq.