Karen Hart v. Boston, City of - Public Records (SPR 20252894)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 10, 2025 SPR25/2887; SPR25/2894 Grace Jung Director of Public Records City of Boston 1 City Hall Square, Room 615 Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Jung: I have received the petition of Karen Hart appealing the responses of the City of Boston (City) to two (2) requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 1, 2025, Ms. Hart requested: All records related to the hiring of [an identified individual]: - Resume - Transcripts - Application forms and materials - Any related correspondence or documents[.] The City initially responded on September 2, 2025 and September 16, 2025, assigning the request reference number R004504-090125 and asking Ms. Hart to narrow the scope of her request. Subsequently, in two modified requests to the City on September 18, 2025, Ms. Hart requested the following: SPR25/2887 (Request 1) [T]he following records related specifically to the hiring of [an identified individual], now principal of the Michael J. Perkins Elementary in South Boston: - Any resume or CV submitted by [an identified individual] in her applications; - Academic transcripts provided by [an identified individual]; - Completed application forms and supporting materials submitted by [an identified individual]; - Correspondence between [an identified individual] and the hiring office regarding her applications and the hiring process. 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

Grace Jung SPR25/2887; SPR25/2894 Page 2 October 10, 2025 It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number R004990- 091825. SPR25/2894 (Request 2) [T]he following records related specifically to the hiring of [an identified individual] who worked for Boston Public Schools in various positions: - Emails or correspondence regarding her ‘graduate’ degrees and salary increases. - Transcripts of the ‘graduate’ degrees - Any correspondence from the university concerning her ‘graduate’ degree. It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number R004993- 091825. The City responded to Request 1 on September 24, 2025 and to Request 2 on September 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Hart petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/2887 and SPR25/2894, were opened as a result. While these appeals were pending, the City provided a supplemental response on October 3, 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. 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 September 24th, September 29th, and October 3rd Responses In its September 24, 2025 response, regarding Request 1, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records.

Grace Jung SPR25/2887; SPR25/2894 Page 3 October 10, 2025 In its September 29, 2025 response, regarding Request 2, the City again cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold certain records, but argued that the request remained too broad to identify all responsive records. On October 3, 2025, a City official stated, “I have alerted representatives from the department regarding this matter in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding your public records request.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Hart stated, “[t]he City of Boston … [has] continually and categorically denied my requests in a manner outside both the letter and the spirit of the law. They have not released any information to me.” In two emails to this office on October 6, 2025, the City summarized its responses to the original request and the two modified requests, and provided copies of its responses to each request. 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 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

Grace Jung SPR25/2887; SPR25/2894 Page 4 October 10, 2025 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. Request 1 Under Exemption (c), the City stated: These records are withheld in their entirety as they relate to personnel records for the purposes of determining employment in accordance with exemption (c) of Massachusetts Public Records law. Any resume or CV, academic transcripts, and completed application forms and other materials submitted by [an identified individual] are withheld. Additionally, correspondence between [an identified individual] and the hiring office regarding her application and the hiring process is withheld. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. Based on the City’s response, where the City has explained that the responsive “resume or CV, academic transcripts, and completed application forms” relate to personnel records for the purposes of determining employment, I find that such 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). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. 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. Consequently, the City has met its burden to withhold those records entirely under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. It is unclear from the City’s response, however, how the “other materials” and “correspondence,” within the City’s possession fall with the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions. The City must clarify this matter. 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). Request 2 Regarding Request 2, the City stated, “…you seek correspondence ‘regarding’ [an identified individual’s] graduate degrees and salary increases. Requests that call for all records ‘regarding’ a broad topic such as this do not describe the records sought with reasonable particularity. Your request is overly broad…”

Grace Jung SPR25/2887; SPR25/2894 Page 5 October 10, 2025 In addition, under Exemption (c), the City stated: [I]f the City could identify these records, they would be withheld under exemption (c) as they relate to the hiring process… All other records including transcripts of degrees and correspondence from the university are withheld in their entirety as they relate to personnel records for the purposes of determining employment in accordance with exemption (c) of Massachusetts Public Records law. The public interest in disclosure of this information does not outweigh the privacy interest of the individual. Based on the City’s response, where the City has explained that the responsive “transcripts of degrees… relate to personnel records for the purposes of determining employment,” I find that such 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). However, where the request seeks correspondence regarding [an identified individual’s] “graduate degrees and salary increases,” it is unclear from the City’s response how the correspondence the City has identified within its possession falls with the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions. The City must clarify this matter. Additionally, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “records related specifically to…” and “regarding” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public records sought. See Chawla, at 2. Ms. Hart may wish to clarify her request, specifically regarding the correspondence she seeks. Once Ms. Hart has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days.

Grace Jung SPR25/2887; SPR25/2894 Page 6 October 10, 2025 This office encourages Ms. Hart and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Hart with responses to her requests, 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 responses must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the responses to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Hart may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s responses within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Karen Hart