Jillian Dahrooge v. Medford, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20252865)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 7, 2025 SPR25/2865 Will Pipicelli Public Records Access Officer Medford Public Schools 489 Winthrop Street Medford, MA 02155 Dear Mr. Pipicelli: I have received the petition of Jillian Dahrooge, Esq., of Fogelman Law, appealing the response of the Medford 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 9, 2025, Attorney Dahrooge requested “the personal records of former teacher/principal of Medford [identified individual].” Following correspondence with the School, Attorney Dahrooge modified her request on September 10, 2025 to seek “a copy of [an identified individual’s] personnel file from Medford Public Schools.” The School responded on September 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Attorney Dahrooge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2865, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the School provided a supplemental response on October 6, 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 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

Will Pipicelli SPR25/2865 Page 2 October 7, 2025 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 and October 6th Responses In its September 15, 2025 response, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. In its October 6, 2025 response, the School provided additional support for its position and stated, “…the district maintains its stance of denial of the personnel file… if the requester would like to make a public records request that is more specific and about information that is available for disclosure in accordance with Massachusetts Public Record Law, Medford Public Schools can work with the requester and the Records Office to provide that information.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Dahrooge stated: In this case, the personnel records sought concern public employees— specifically, a former teacher/principal—whose conduct directly relates to public duties. The public has a recognized and legitimate interest in ensuring that public officials are performing in a lawful and competent manner. These records are instrumental in evaluating accountability, oversight, and integrity in public service. The privacy interest here is minimal… Furthermore, any sensitive personal identifiers can be easily redacted. 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.

Will Pipicelli SPR25/2865 Page 3 October 7, 2025 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. Under Exemption (c), the School stated: The district is denying your request pursuant to G. L. Chapter 4, Section 7 (26)(c)… Information following within the personnel category is absolutely exempt from disclosure… In Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Committee of Wakefield, the court ruled that teacher evaluation reports are exempt from disclosure as this would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if released. These reports and other performance reviews are part of an employee’s personnel file, which are not to be disclosed… We believe that the disclosure of [an identified individual’s] personnel file, which contains performance reviews during his time in a public role and other personal information, is exempt from disclosure. Based on the School’s responses, where the responsive teacher evaluation reports and performance reviews within the personnel file contain evaluative information about a specifically named employee, I find that those 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. It is unclear from the School’s response, however, whether the School is withholding additional records within the personnel file and whether any remaining records constitute

Will Pipicelli SPR25/2865 Page 4 October 7, 2025 personnel information that falls within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield. The School must clarify this matter. It should also 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Attorney Dahrooge with a response to her 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. Attorney Dahrooge may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jillian Dahrooge, Esq.