Maureen Fleming v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Districts (SPR 20252941)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 22, 2025 SPR25/2941 Meghan R. Dushko Records Access Officer Amherst-Pelham Regional School District 170 Chestnut Street Amherst, MA 01002 Dear Ms. Dushko: I have received the petition of Maureen Fleming appealing the response of the Amherst- Pelham Regional School District (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 19, 2025, Ms. Fleming requested the following 1. All Committee Action Contracts & Compensation (FY 2024–2025 and FY 2025–2026) to include: - All contracts and stipends and any other additional activities contracts for Committee Action employees. - A list of any Committee Action employees who have paid coaches or mentors, including their coaches or mentors contracts, fees paid to date, and expected fees for the duration 2. Personnel Compensation & Assignments - Contracted work outline for [a named individual] from August 1, 2025, to present. - The date [a named individual]’s special assignment (post-principalship) is expected to end. - [The named individual]’s total compensation pay post-employment as Summit Academy Principal. 3. A copy of the separation settlement between the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District and [a named individual]. 4. The investigation report completed by [a named individual] and the fee charged by [the individual] for this investigation. 5. Employee Benefits & Leave - The current telework policy and names of staff who have been approved to work remotely either full time, part time or one day per week. 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

Meghan R. Dushko SPR25/2941 Page 2 October 22, 2025 The School responded on October 3, and October 7, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Subsequently, I understand Ms. Fleming paid the fees, and the School provided records. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Ms. Fleming petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2941, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the School provided a further response to Ms. Fleming and this office on October 14, 2025, and in an email on the same day, Ms. Fleming objected to the School’s further response. Status of the Requestor In her appeal petition, Ms. Fleming states that “I, along with another district director, have active MCAD complaints regarding these same incidents, and the report is critical to ensuring a fair and accurate process.” 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Fleming’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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 School’s October 3rd and October 14th Responses In its October 3, 2025 response, the School indicates that it will withhold multiple records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).

Meghan R. Dushko SPR25/2941 Page 3 October 22, 2025 In its October 14, 2025 response, the School provides a copy of the settlement agreement responsive to Item 3 of the request, and explains that it intends to withhold the investigation report responsive to Item 4 of the request pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In her October 7, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Fleming argues the following: I am appealing the decision to withhold the separation agreement with Douglas Slaughter and the investigation report which was initiated after twelve school administrators including myself brought concerns to our regional school committee about a hostile work environment created by the superintendent. In her October 14, 2025 email to this office, Ms. Fleming further argues the following: I am writing to appeal, again, the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District’s denial of my request for the investigation report related to workplace hostility, sexual harassment, and retaliation. The district’s Public Records Officer informed you today via email that the report is being withheld under the “personnel file” exemption. I respectfully challenge that classification. This investigation was not a routine personnel matter but an inquiry into serious allegations of misconduct involving district leadership—the superintendent and one of her subordinates. The investigation details clearly serve the public interest in transparency and accountability. . . . Notably, the district has recently released another, similar investigation report, one that included allegations by the superintendent that she was the victim of a hostile work environment, suggesting the exemption is being inconsistently applied. The superintendent’s assertions were not proven to be substantiated by the second investigator, a seasoned MCAD investigator. Based on her appeal petition and subsequent email, and where the School has now provided a copy of the settlement agreement, I understand that Ms. Fleming objects only to the withholding of the investigation report responsive to Item 4 of her 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

Meghan R. Dushko SPR25/2941 Page 4 October 22, 2025 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. 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).

Meghan R. Dushko SPR25/2941 Page 5 October 22, 2025 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 October 3rd response, the School explains the following: [P]lease note that some information will be withheld under exemption (c) which applies to: “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.” Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’” may be withheld from disclosure. For example, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee,” may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c).” The following information will be withheld: - A copy of the separation settlement between the Amherst- Pelham Regional School District and Douglas Slaughter. - The investigation report completed by Attorney Christine A. Phipps - Names of staff who have been approved to work remotely either full time, part time or one day per week In its October 14th response, under Exemption (c), the School clarifies that “with regards to the ‘investigation report completed by Attorney Christine A. Phipps,’ the District maintains that this document is a part of a personnel record and will be withheld under exemption (c).” In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claim made by the School to withhold the responsive investigation report, the School must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to the School’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding.

Meghan R. Dushko SPR25/2941 Page 6 October 22, 2025 Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Maureen Fleming