John Hilliard v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252546)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 10, 2025 SPR25/2546 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of John Hilliard, of the Boston Globe, 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 August 14, 2025, Mr. Hilliard requested, “[a]ll application materials, including cover letters and resumes, for Cambridge Public Schools superintendent finalists . . .” The City provided a response to Mr. Hilliard on August 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response Mr. Hilliard petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2546, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a further response on September 9, 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

Seah Levy SPR25/2546 Page 2 September 10, 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 August 27th and September 9th Responses In its August 27, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Hilliard stated, “[p]lease find my appeal of a denial for access to public records. I have attached my original request for records associated with three finalists for Cambridge school superintendent. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.” 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,

Seah Levy SPR25/2546 Page 3 September 10, 2025 and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In its August 27, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he City is denying your request as the information requested is exempt from disclosure pursuant to G.L. c. 4 §7(26)(c ). The information requested falls into the core category of personnel records, protected pursuant to this exemption of the public records law.” In its September 9, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]his is an ongoing Superintendent Search. A final decision has not yet been made. The requester is asking for documents submitted such as resumes, cover letters, etc that have been submitted by candidates. These are both records that are part of the ongoing policy deliberation (deciding who to hire) and eventually, personnel records of the three applicants (core category of hire, fire, promote, etc).” Although, the City indicates that the records constitute personnel information, it is unclear how all the requested records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. Further, the City must clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. 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. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Hilliard with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 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. Mr. Hilliard may 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: John Hilliard