Maurice J. Ornelas v. Massasoit Community College (SPR 20252683)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 24, 2025 SPR25/2683 Alex J. Villanueva Records Access Officer Massasoit Community College One Massasoit Boulevard Brockton, MA 02302 Dear Mr. Villanueva: I have received the petition of Dr. Maurice J. Ornelas appealing the response of Massasoit Community College (College) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 27, 2025, Dr. Ornelas requested “... access to and copies of all records pertaining to my application and candidacy for the Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities position at Massasoit Community College... [for the period] June 1, 2025 (date of application) through August 27, 2025. I am specifically requesting: [1] Application materials submitted by me and maintained by the College. [2] Internal correspondence (including emails, memoranda, or notes) related to my candidacy. [3] Interview notes or materials. [4] Scoring sheets, evaluations, or ranking documents used in the selection Process. [5] Any other documents directly related to my candidacy for this position.” The College responded to Dr. Ornelas’ request on September 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the College’s response, Dr. Ornelas petitioned this office, and this appeal SPR25/2683, was opened as a result. 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). 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

Alex J. Villanueva SPR25/2683 Page 2 September 24, 2025 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. 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. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. ------------ Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Therefore, Dr. Ornelas’ interest in obtaining the reports shall have no bearing on the public nature of the record. The College’s September 10th response In its September 10, 2025 response, the College cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. Current appeal In his appeal, Dr. Ornelas stated, “I respectfully appeal the withholding of records directly related to my own application and candidacy. I am the applicant named in these records. While I understand and support the redaction of information relating to other applicants, I believe that withholding records specifically about me under Exemption (c) is overbroad and inconsistent with the spirit of the law. Access to one’s own application materials and evaluations does not constitute an ‘unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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

Alex J. Villanueva SPR25/2683 Page 3 September 24, 2025 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 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 Association v. School Committee 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 Association, 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 Association, 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. 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 ------------------

Alex J. Villanueva SPR25/2683 Page 4 September 24, 2025 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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. In its response the College stated that , “...the college is in possession of several documents you are requesting – including the application materials and interview notes – but they are exempted from the Commonwealth’s public records law under exemption (c). It is our determination that releasing any application/ hiring materials related to or including the names of unsuccessful candidates would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy that ‘would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities.” 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 is exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395 at 6 (June 20, 2024) (“personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) and Wakefield.”) Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Dr. Ornelas 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: Dr. Maurice J. Ornelas