Christopher Patzke v. Salem, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20252500)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 8, 2025 SPR25/2500 James F. Wellock, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney Wellock: I have received the petition of Christopher Patzke appealing the response of the City of Salem (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 26, 2025, Mr. Patzke requested “[t]he original applications for all members and alternates of the city seal task force.” The City responded on July 28, August 7, August 20, and August 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Patzke petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2500, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a supplemental response on August 25, 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. Att’y 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

James F. Wellock, Esq. SPR25/2500 Page 2 September 8, 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. The City’s Responses In its July 28, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of the request and informed Mr. Patzke that it would respond further within 10 business days. In its August 7, 2025 response, the City stated that it would require ten additional business days to respond to the request. In its August 20, 2025 response, the City stated that it would provide a response by the end of the following day. In its August 21, 2025 response, the City stated that it would likely withhold or redact responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, but that it intended to contact this office to seek additional guidance. Current Appeal In his August 22, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Patzke characterized the City’s responses as insufficient and stated, “[g]iven the fact that portions of their applications have already been published by the City I don’t see how the City can now claim an exemption on the same materials.” In its August 25, 2025 response, the City clarified that it was withholding the responsive records in their entirety pursuant to 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

James F. Wellock, Esq. SPR25/2500 Page 3 September 8, 2025 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. In its August 25, 2025 response, the City stated that the requested records were “… categorically exempt from disclosure of the Public Records Law under Exemption C as they are core personnel records.” Based on the City’s responses, and where the request seeks employment applications pertaining to particular employees, I find that the City has met its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety under Exemption (c). In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c).” Id. at 6. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Patzke 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).

James F. Wellock, Esq. SPR25/2500 Page 4 September 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Patzke Joanne M. Roomey