Linda Catanzariti v. North Attleborough, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252922)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 14, 2025 SPR25/2922 Patricia McNielly Town Clerk Town of North Attleborough 43 South Washington Street North Attleborough, MA 02760 Dear Ms. McNielly: I have received the petition of Linda Catanzariti appealing the response of the Town of North Attleborough (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 9, 2025, Ms. Catanzariti requested “the HR Director’s letter to the Town Manager concerning the harassment & bullying complaint against the North Attleboro Public School administration.” The Town responded on August 19, 2025, assigning the request reference number PRR-25-107. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Catanzariti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2922, 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. 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

Patricia McNielly SPR25/2922 Page 2 October 14, 2025 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Catanzariti’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. The Town’s August 19th Response In its August 19, 2025 response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Catanzariti stated: I filed a harassment complaint against the School Department to the Town Manager, who passed it on to the HR Director to do an initial investigation… [A] memo was crafted by the HR Director to the Town Manager, agreeing with my allegations of harassment. I have a copy of the draft memo, but not the final memo… [T]he Town Manager denied my complaint without an outside investigation… [T]he memo to the Town Manager has to do with harassment involving me. 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).

Patricia McNielly SPR25/2922 Page 3 October 14, 2025 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 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. 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

Patricia McNielly SPR25/2922 Page 4 October 14, 2025 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 Town stated: The Town possesses records responsive to your requests, which are exempt and withheld from disclosure as they constitute: [1] Personnel information… [2] Materials/data relation to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy… [a] The disclosure of redacted information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, who would find that dissemination of information relating to complaints of harassment would certainly result in embarrassment for those accused of such behavior in having such sensitive information about them revealed publicly. [b] The information is of a highly personal nature, in that it contains references to matters that could potentially lead to stigma (raising allegations of harassment) which by law constitutes highly personal information. [c] The same information is available by way of emails that you provided to the Town as part of the investigation and by way of the Town’s… letter to you… Although the Town indicates that it is withholding the responsive records under both clauses of Exemption (c), it is unclear how the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is also uncertain how the Town may withhold the responsive records in their entirety under the privacy clause of Exemption (c). The Town has not sufficiently demonstrated how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. The Town 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. Id. Further, where the Town states that “[t]he same information is available by way of emails… [and] the Town’s… letter,” it is unclear how any privacy interests at stake may be affected where the same information is available from other sources. 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). The Town must clarify these matters.

Patricia McNielly SPR25/2922 Page 5 October 14, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Catanzariti 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. Catanzariti may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Linda Catanzariti