Cheri Amour Mahan v. Weston, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252724)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 25, 2025 SPR25/724 Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Technology & Operations Weston Public Schools 89 Wellesley Street Weston, MA 02493 Dear Dr. Trahan: I have received the petition of Cheri Amour Mahan appealing the response of the Weston Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 16, 2025, Ms. Mahan requested: [1] All emails and written communications sent between July 1, 2021, and June 1, 2025, that include any of the following [identified individuals] - where [an identified individual] or his educational placement is mentioned. [2] All budget records, invoices, contracts, or payments made by Weston Public Schools for [an identified individual’s] outplacement services, including LABBB Collaborative and Wellesley Public Schools. [3] All administrative memos, policy documents, or guidelines used between 2021-2025 related to the justification, decision-making or approval process for outplacements or IEP-related removals. [4] Any special education staff training materials or internal procedural manuals that governed IEP team decisions and parental rights during the same period. The School initially responded on June 26, 2025 and August 12, 2025. On August 15, 2025, after correspondence with the School, Ms. Mahan modified her request to seek the following records: [1] All emails, internal or external, including attachments, text messages, and other written communications regarding [an identified individual’s] outplacement, covering: 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

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2724 Page 2 September 25, 2025 - Outplacement period: September 1, 2021 – March 31, 2023 - Post-outplacement communications: April 1, 2023 – present - [identified individuals] - Any other Weston Public Schools employee or representative involved in [an identified individual’s] educational placement or related decisions[;] [2] The complete internal investigation report concerning Formal Complaint against [an identified individual], along with all supporting documentation[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2419 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2025). In my August 29th determination, I found the School had met its burden to withhold the records responsive to Item 1 of the modified request under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Regarding Item 2 of the modified request, I found that although the School could withhold identifying information of voluntary witnesses and complainants under Exemption (f), the School had not met its burden to withhold the responsive investigation report in its entirety under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. The School responded on September 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Mahan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2724, 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). 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. The School’s September 15th Response In its September 15, 2025 response, the School again cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive investigation report in its entirety.

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2724 Page 3 September 25, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Mahan argued that the School’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Failure to meet the burden of proof and segregability. [2] Overbroad use of Exemption (c). [3] Overbroad use of Exemption (f). [4] Public interest. 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 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.

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2724 Page 4 September 25, 2025 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 School stated: …[A]ny responsive records relate to a personnel matter and investigation of a District employee in response to complaints you made relative to the education and services provided to your child. You specifically identified the individual for whom you are seeking records in your request, and all such records would be identifiable to you regardless of any level of redaction. The records sought are related to a personnel complaint and investigation relating to a complaint you made against an employee, and are of a personal nature for that employee. As such, the information in these records constitutes personnel information under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c), which is absolutely exempt from public disclosure under the law, as found by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Further, the requested records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature for the involved personnel, would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities if released; and we are not aware of the same information being available from other public sources. The District has determined that these allegations relate only to you and your family, and there is no substantial general public interest in these records. On the other hand, there is a

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2724 Page 5 September 25, 2025 substantial privacy interest for the employee involved. As such, even if the records were not absolutely exempt from disclosure under established law as personnel records, they are additionally exempt from disclosure under the privacy clause of M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c). Although the School indicates that it is withholding the investigation report under both clauses of Exemption (c), it remains unclear how the requested record constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It also remains uncertain how the School may withhold the investigation report in its entirety under the privacy clause of Exemption (c). Specifically, the School has not demonstrated how the requested record contains intimate details of a highly personal nature nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. The School must also provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The School must clarify these matters. Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 290 n.18. Exemption (f) invites a “case-by-case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2724 Page 6 September 25, 2025 assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. Under Exemption (f), the School stated: …[Y]our request seeks investigatory information related to a personnel complaint you made, and to claims you continue to raise against the District. None of the information in any responsive materials could be redacted to protect the identities of volunteer witnesses under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(f). Further, because you have expressed dissatisfaction with the District’s investigation and continue to assert claims against the District, revealing the manner in which the District conducts its related investigations would be prejudicial to any related investigations if disclosed, by allowing any subjects, complainants, and/or witnesses with an interest in the matter to use the additional information to potentially affect those investigations. As such, the District has determined that disclosure of any responsive records would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest, and this information falls within the purposes of the investigatory exemption and is exempt from disclosure. Based on the School’s response, it remains unclear how the identifying information of voluntary witnesses and complainants cannot be redacted from the responsive record so that segregable portions can be provided. It is also not clear how the investigation report contains confidential investigative techniques that would be prejudicial to an ongoing investigation if disclosed. Further, the School did not demonstrate how disclosure of any segregable portion of the responsive records “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest[,]” as required under Exemption (f). Consequently, I find that the School has not met its burden to withhold the the investigation report in its entirety under Exemption (f). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Mahan with a response to the 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. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2724 Page 7 September 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cheri Amour Mahan