Colman Herman v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252426)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 2, 2025 SPR25/2426 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 8, 2025, Mr. Herman requested, “...copies of any and all reports on employee-on-employee sexual misconduct for the school year 2025 at Boston Public Schools.” The City responded on August 13, 2025, and assigned the request reference number R004110-080825. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2426, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a further response on August 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 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. 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

Grace Jung SPR25/2426 Page 2 September 2, 2025 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 August 17, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Herman states, “[t]his claim lacks the specificity required by the public records law.” The City’s August 13th and August 27th Responses In its August 13, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the requested records in their entirety. In its August 27, 2025 response, the City elaborated on its claim that the records are exempt under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. 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 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

Grace Jung SPR25/2426 Page 3 September 2, 2025 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. In its August 13, 2025 response, the City asserts: [The City is] withholding your records in their entirety as they relate to personnel records for the purposes of determining employment in accordance with exemption (c) of Massachusetts Public Records law. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c). In its August 27, 2025 response, the City stated, “[the City has] reached out to the department and have confirmed that these records are exempt as they include personnel files. Exemption (c) applies to ‘personnel and medical files or information the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’. The withheld records relate to internal investigations involving Boston Public Schools employees and include sensitive personnel information, such as reports about employee misconduct and therefore personnel records which are exempt from disclosure. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c).” The Court in Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 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). Id. at 798. Further, in Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court opined “[r]egarding reports that may lead to Staff on Student and Staff on Staff discipline those records are personnel files and shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) and Wakefield ...[.]” Id. at 6. Consequently, based on the City’s responses, I find that the City has met its burden to withhold the records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Herman is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman