Melissa Boylan v. North Middlesex Regional School District (SPR 20252524)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2524 Robin Eibye Records Access Officer North Middlesex Regional School District 60 Brookline Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Ms. Eibye: I have received the petition of Melissa Boylan appealing the response of the North Middlesex Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 11, 2025, Ms. Boylan requested, “[a] copy of the superintendent’s evaluation… the compilation as well as each individual members completed form…” The District responded on August 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Boylan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2524, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the District provided a supplemental response on September 5, 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

Robin Eibye SPR25/2524 Page 2 September 9, 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 District’s August 25th and September 5th Responses In its August 25, 2025 response, the District provided the “compilation evaluation.” In its September 5, 2025 supplemental response, the District cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the “individual records… within School Committee members’ possession.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Boylan stated, “[t]hese evaluations were discussed at the school committee meeting… During this meeting, there was concern from members who completed individual evaluations that they were not represented in the compilation which is what led to the request… I was disheartened to hear the district saying that they do not have it when it was discussed publicly and the chair of the school committee shared that she has all of the copies.” In an email to this office on August 27, 2025, Ms. Boylan stated, “I have requested and received the information in the public records request for years and have always received it up until this year.” In reply to the District’s supplemental response on September 5, 2025, Ms. Boylan argued that the individual evaluation records should be released “with only minimal redactions for truly confidential personal information unrelated to job performance.” 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 Information 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

Robin Eibye SPR25/2524 Page 3 September 9, 2025 determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation 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. Second Clause – Privacy 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. Under Exemption (c), the District stated:

Robin Eibye SPR25/2524 Page 4 September 9, 2025 The documents contain personnel information relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy… This includes employee work evaluations... Accordingly, where the records contain information useful in making an employment decision, they are being withheld from disclosure… Here, the public interest does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of the invasion of privacy... On August 12, 2025, the School Committee held an open session generally addressing the evaluation but without disclosing the specific feedback provided. Any further disclosures would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy… As to the first element [of the balancing test], disclosure of employment evaluations (specifically, individual feedback from supervisors) would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. As to the second element, the materials contain intimate details of a highly personal nature. In particular, such details include reputation, which is imputed by public disclosure of individual feedback on work performance... As to the third element, similar (albeit general) information was discussed during the August 12, 2025 School Committee meeting. However, as discussed above, the specific information contained in the documents requested is not available from other sources. Based on the District’s response, where the individual school committee members’ superintendent evaluations contain evaluative information about a specifically named district employee, I find that the records fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and are exempt under Exemption (c). Id. 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. Consequently, the District has met its burden to withhold the individual evaluations entirely under the personnel clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Where the School has met its burden to withhold the individual evaluations under the personnel clause of Exemption (c), I decline to opine on the applicability of the privacy clause of Exemption (c) to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Boylan 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Robin Eibye SPR25/2524 Page 5 September 9, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Melissa Boylan