James M. Crowley v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252462)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 3, 2025 SPR25/2462 Seah Levy Public Records Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of James M. Crowley appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 17, 2025, Mr. Crowley requested the following: …any and all information held by the [C]ity as it relates to the transfer of [an identified individual] from the Criminal Investigations Section (CIS) of the Cambridge Police Department. This would have occurred in the latter months of 2021. In specific, and directly related to a MA Department of Labor Relations ruling in favor of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association (CPPOA), I am seeking notes, reports, recordings, emails and other information held by the city as to the reason [an identified individual] was transferred without his request. Please include any documents and/or reports that support any claim(s) that [an identified individual] was somehow a detriment to the daily operations of the CIS… The City responded on July 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Crowley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2462, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on August 28, 2025, the City provided a supplemental response. 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 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

Seah Levy SPR25/2462 Page 2 September 3, 2025 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. See 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. See 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 30th Response In its July 30, 2025 response, the City stated the following: Regarding your request for a service record document, please find a record responsive to this request uploaded to your account on the Public Records Center as well as linked from this email. Regarding the remainder of your request, please provide more specific parameter to assist in the search, as you offered above. As currently written, the City is unable to provide a response to the request as currently written. A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought “with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Department of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1 794CV02087 (January 23, 2019) … Please submit a revised request, and the City will attempt to determine what materials might be located in response. In a July 30, 2025 email to the City, Mr. Crowley clarified that he was seeking “… the actual handwritten note presented to [an identified individual] …” stating the reasons that the individual was involuntarily transferred. Current Appeal In his August 19, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Crowley stated, “I am asking for any assistance you could provide. As this request is well outside the ten day period, I would ask that any fees by waived.”

Seah Levy SPR25/2462 Page 3 September 3, 2025 On August 28, 2025, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested record in its entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In an August 28, 2025 email, Mr. Crowley objected to the City withholding the record under Exemption (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 – 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 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. Under Exemption (c), the City states, “[t]he requested record falls within the core category of personnel records protected by law.”

Seah Levy SPR25/2462 Page 4 September 3, 2025 Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The City cites Exemption (c) without any explanation of the applicability of the exemption to the responsive record. Particularly, it is unclear how the responsive record constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the record can be withheld in its entirety. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Crowley with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James M. Crowley