Jess Nardizzi v. South Hadley, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252787)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 2, 2025 SPR25/2787 Jennifer Voyik Superintendent of Schools South Hadley Public School District 116 Main Street South Hadley, MA 01075 Dear Ms. Voyik: I have received the petition of Jess Nardizzi appealing the response of the South Hadley Public 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 September 6, 2025, Ms. Nardizzi sought the following records: [1] Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Cases – from 2025 through the present day (9/6/2025). Including but not limited to: [a] Copies of all settlement agreements between the District and the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) or internal agreements between the District and SHEA that were not reported to DLR[;] [b] Copies of the District’s responses in each case[;] [c] Copies of any notices posted as part of those settlements, including the wording of the notices and documentation of the locations where they were posted. [2] Documentation for ULP Case #MUP-25-11284[,] [i]ncluding but not limited to: [a] Copies of all email communications between the District, its representatives, and involved parties (including union representatives, legal counsel, members of the School Committee, and the DLR regarding scheduling of meetings, or emails directly related to the case that contain [an identified individual], or the position title, Middle School Assistant Principal, 2024-2025[;] [b] Direct evidence and information relating to the alleged charge of “the Middle School Assistant Principal’s request that the Union President be disciplined for her advocacy on behalf of her members[;] [c] Attendance records or notes indicating who was present at any settlement meetings. 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

Jennifer Voyik SPR25/2787 Page 2 October 2, 2025 The District responded on September 19, and September 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s responses, Ms. Nardizzi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2787, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on September 29, 2025, the District sent an additional response. 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. See 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. See 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 September 19th, September 22nd, and September 29th Responses In its September 19, 2025 response, the District stated, “I have gathered all of the information you request. Appropriate redactions will be made in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(c), with respect to information related to specifically identified students, as required under FERPA and applicable state regulations regarding student records. In addition, any personnel information protected by law will also be reviewed for necessary redactions.” In its September 22, 2025 response, the District stated that it possessed no records responsive to Item 2c of the request. The District withheld the remaining responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and attorney-client privilege. In its September 29, 2025 response, the District identified “five settlement agreements” responsive to Item 1a and “made redactions” under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law “due to allegations of personnel related issues.” The District identified “responses for five of the charges filed by SHEA in the last ten years” responsive to Item 1b, stating all of the responses were exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The District cited attorney-client privilege to withhold “17 pages of emails” responsive to Item 2a. The District stated that no responsive records exist for either Item 2b or Item 2c. The District provided records responsive to Item 1c.

Jennifer Voyik SPR25/2787 Page 3 October 2, 2025 Current Appeal In her September 23, 2025 appeal to this office, Ms. Nardizzi stated, “… [t]he District applied Exemption (c) in an overly broad way. Instead of considering partial release or redaction, the Superintendent stated that ‘redactions would not be suitable.’…Meeting notes, attendance, or related communications should exist…The Superintendent stated that no records exist showing attendance or notes from settlement meetings, and denied access to emails, citing legal privilege. However, the settlement was between the District and the Union, and it is difficult to believe that no emails or other communications exist to approve the settlement or schedule the meetings…” 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, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798.

Jennifer Voyik SPR25/2787 Page 4 October 2, 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. 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). 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. Item 1(b) – District’s Responses In its September 22nd response, under Exemption (c), the District argued, “[t]hese records contain extremely personal information regarding many persons who are mentioned within such records. The records contain allegations of personnel related issues. The information contained within this document is not available elsewhere…With respect to these records, the items asserted therein do not contain information that would create a public interest over the privacy protections of all those named in the documents. Redactions to these particular documents would not be suitable as the entire document contains allegations relating to personnel information of a highly sensitive nature that would not be outweighed by the limited public interest in this particular.” In its September 29th response, under Exemption (c), the District argues, “[w]ith respect to your [Item 1(b)] request upon review of the documents compiled the District has responses for five of the charges filed by SHEA in the last ten years…[i]n reviewing each of the responses, the District is claiming that all of these documents in their entirety are exempt from disclosure…due to allegations of personnel related issues within each document. As responses to charges, these documents contain extremely specific information related to each person listed so in.… Furthermore, when balancing the public interest in disclosure against the privacy interest of those

Jennifer Voyik SPR25/2787 Page 5 October 2, 2025 so named in these documents, these documents all involve allegations and defenses of specifically named persons…” In a September 29, 2025 email, Ms. Nardizzi stated, “[p]lease see the attached 4 documents taken from the DLR website portal for looking up public documents. I believe this speaks to your assertion that these documents are not available publicly.” The District’s responses do not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Particularly, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. 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). Additionally, the District has not demonstrated how disclosure of the withheld records would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities nor whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature. Further, in light of Ms. Nardizzi’s claim, it is unclear whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The District must clarify these matters. Item 1(a) – Settlement Agreements In its September 29, 2025 response, under Exemption (c), the District states, “[t]he settlement agreements…are related to resolutions of disciplinary matters and/or involve specifically named employees. After further review, the District has made redactions regarding these attached agreements but asserts that the redactions are protected by [Exemption (c)] due to the allegations of personnel related issues. The information contained within these documents are not available elsewhere…” The controlling case for redactions made to a settlement agreement is Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). In the Globe decision, the court listed the following information as properly subject to redaction within a settlement agreement under the personnel clause of Exemption (c): (1) promotion of grade; (2) compensation at a different salary grade; (3) adjustment in compensation; (4) waiver of bumping rights and/or recall rights; (5) entitlement to remain on administrative leave; (6) requirement to tender a letter of resignation; (7) demand of voluntary resignation; (8) reinstatement; (9) layoff; (10) agreement by an agency to remove a letter from a personnel file; (11) agreement by an agency concerning the providing of references and their contents; (12) the requirement that an employee meet with a supervisor to review progress of assigned matters; (13) adjustment of an agency’s records to reflect an employee’s status; (14) adjustment or continuation of employee benefits, such as unemployment assistance, COBRA, and retirement benefits, and agreement regarding back wages; (15) recitations concerning grievances, including

Jennifer Voyik SPR25/2787 Page 6 October 2, 2025 agreement to withdraw a grievance and acknowledgment by an employee of the absence of a pending grievance; (16) a statement of resolution of all claims concerning termination of employment and prior disciplinary actions, (17) agreement to turn in agency property, (18) global resolution involving the entering of a nolle prosequi by a prosecutorial official; (19) language affirming an agency’s legitimate concern for discipline and an employee’s receipt of a memorandum of verbal discipline; and (20) completion by an employer of harassment training. Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34-35. Based on the District’s responses, it is unclear whether the settlement agreements responsive to Item 1a were redacted in accordance with the twenty areas cited in the Globe decision. See Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34-35. The District must clarify this. Item 2(a) – Emails Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007 (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the ground upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Citing attorney-client privilege in its September 29th response to Item 2a, the District states, “in reviewing this request the District located a total of 17 pages of emails between District counsel and the Superintendent and between District counsel and SHEA counsel.” Based upon the District’s response, I find the District has not met its burden to withhold records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the District must clarify whether the requested communications were made between the District and its attorney in the course of

Jennifer Voyik SPR25/2787 Page 7 October 2, 2025 the District’s search for legal advice, whether the communications were made in confidence, and whether the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. The District must also provide a detailed description of the records which includes the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such records, and the grounds upon which the attorney- client privilege is being claimed, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Nardizzi 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. Ms. Nardizzi may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jess Nardizzi Kimberly M. Roche, Esq.