Katherine Connolly v. Holbrook, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20252924)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2924 Jeanmarie Tarara Town Clerk Town of Holbrook 50 N Franklin Street Holbrook, MA 02343 Dear Ms. Tarara: I have received the petition of Katherine Connolly appealing the response of the Town of Holbrook (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 21, 2025, Ms. Connolly requested “the latest employee Performance Review of [a named individual], Assistant Town Administrator, conducted by the Holbrook Select Board.” The Town responded on July 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Connolly petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2924, 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

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/2924 Page 2 October 20, 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. The Town’s July 24th Response In its July 24, 2025 response, the Town states that it is withholding a performance review pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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.

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/2924 Page 3 October 20, 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. 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 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. In its July 24th response, under Exemption (c), the Town argues the following: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted this exemption broadly. In Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 797 (2000), the Court held that materials such as employment applications, educational history, disciplinary records, performance evaluations, and other information central to employment decision-making constitute the “essence” of a personnel file and are thus exempt from disclosure. See Id. at 797- 98. Additionally, other cases reinforce that work evaluations and similar materials are categorically exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c). See Brogan v. School Committee of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Pottle v. School Committee of Braintree, 395 Mass. 861, 866 (1985). The document you requested—a performance review of a specifically named employee—falls squarely within the exempt category of “personnel and medical files or information.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7. Performance evaluations are among the protected types of personnel records under Massachusetts law, as they contain subjective assessments of an individual’s job performance, which are central to

Jeanmarie Tarara SPR25/2924 Page 4 October 20, 2025 employment decisions. See Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Comm. of Wakefield, at 798 (holding that personnel information useful in employment decisions is protected). Because Exemption (c) creates a categorical exemption, the Town is not permitted to disclose such records. Accordingly, the Town must respectfully deny your request. Based on the information provided in the Town’s July 24th response, I find that the withheld record falls within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and is exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798; Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV02395 at 6 (June 20, 2024) (“personnel files ... shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) and Wakefield.”). Consequently, I find that the Town has met its burden to withhold the performance review under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Connolly is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katherine Connolly Etty Singer, Esq.