Meghan Dube v. Cannabis Control Commission (SPR 20252910)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 17, 2025 SPR25/2910 Philip Schreffler, Esq. Associate General Counsel Cannabis Control Commission 2 Washington Square Worcester, MA 01604 Dear Attorney Schreffler: I have received the petition of Meghan Dube appealing the response of the Cannabis Control Commission (Commission) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 8, 2025, Ms. Dube requested: [1] Evaluation documents created by members of the body for the purposes of evaluation of evaluate [an identified individual] for the period of October 16, 2023 to the present MGL c. 30A Section 22 (a), regardless if these materials were used for an Open Meeting or an Executive Session. [2] Memo sent through email by [an identified individual] prior to October 16, 2023 recommending a pay increase for [an identified individual] (inclusive of any memo that was not approved and/or was not acted upon). [a] Any associated emails[.] [3] Memos or other documents authorizing pay increases on the following effective dates: [a] August 27, 2023[;] [b] December 3, 2023[;] [c] December 17, 2023[;] [d] December 29, 2024[.] Subsequently, on August 9, 2025, Ms. Dube requested: [4] Investigative reports prepared by [an identified individual], from September 2023 through the present, related to investigations into [an identified individual’s] behavior and treatment of various staff. 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

Philip Schreffler, Esq. SPR25/2910 Page 2 October 17, 2025 The Commission responded on August 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Dube petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2910, 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 Commission’s August 20th Response In its August 20, 2025 response, the Commission withheld all responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her October 3, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Dube objected to the Commission’s citation of Exemption (c), and sought disclosure of the responsive records. 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).

Philip Schreffler, Esq. SPR25/2910 Page 3 October 17, 2025 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. In its August 20, 2025 response, the Commission stated: … Exemption C creates two entirely separate categories of information. The first is medical information and personnel information, that is, information useful to making employment decisions. This information is categorically exempt from disclosure. There is no balancing test, there is no public interest, there is simply an exemption from disclosure … “While the precise contours of the legislative term “personnel [file] or information” may require case-by-case articulation, it includes, at a minimum, employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee. These constitute the core categories of personnel information that are “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee.” … As Wakefield makes clear, the information you seek is almost exclusively in the personnel information category and thus categorically exempt from disclosure … As the Commission is not a law enforcement agency, any investigation into [an identified individual] was not a law enforcement misconduct investigation, and this exception to the rule simply does not apply.

Philip Schreffler, Esq. SPR25/2910 Page 4 October 17, 2025 Based on the Commission’s response, I find that the Commission has met its burden to withhold in their entirety records responsive to Items 1 and 4, pursuant to the personnel clause of Exemption (c). 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. However, based on the Commission’s response, it is unclear how the records responsive to Items 2 and 3, in their entirety, constitute personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. 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 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Commission must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Ms. Dube with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Dube may appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Meghan Dube