Jess Nardizzi v. South Hadley, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253053)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3053 Jennifer Voyik Superintendent of Schools South Hadley Public School District 116 Main Street South Hadley, MA 01075 Dear Superintendent Voyik: I have received the petition of Jess Nardizzi appealing the response of the South Hadley Public School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 6, 2025, Ms. Nardizzi sought the following records: [1] Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Cases – from 2025 through the present day (9/6/2025). Including but not limited to: [a] Copies of all settlement agreements between the District and the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) or internal agreements between the District and SHEA that were not reported to DLR[;] [b] Copies of the District’s responses in each case[;] [c] Copies of any notices posted as part of those settlements, including the wording of the notices and documentation of the locations where they were posted. [2] Documentation for ULP Case #MUP-25-11284[,] [i]ncluding but not limited to: [a] Copies of all email communications between the District, its representatives, and involved parties (including union representatives, legal counsel, members of the School Committee, and the DLR regarding scheduling of meetings, or emails directly related to the case that contain [an identified individual], or the position title, Middle School Assistant Principal, 2024-2025[;] [b] Direct evidence and information relating to the alleged charge of “the Middle School Assistant Principal’s request that the Union President be disciplined for her advocacy on behalf of her members[;] [c] Attendance records or notes indicating who was present at any settlement meetings. 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

Superintendent Jennifer Voyik SPR25/3053 Page 2 October 31, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2787 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 2, 2025). In my October 2nd determination, I found that the District did not meet its burden to withhold records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, as well as the attorney-client privilege. The District responded on October 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Nardizzi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3053, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on October 22, 2025, the District sent an additional response. 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. See 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. See 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 District’s October 17th Response In its October 17, 2025 response, the District provided the settlement agreements with redactions pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additionally, the District provided a privilege log and stated, “[i]n all of the above listed emails, the purpose of the emails was to seek legal advice, receive legal advice, or respond to legal advice and/or request for legal advice. My client has not waived this privilege as the advice sought and received in these emails were not shared outside of the attorney/client relationship…” Current Appeal In her October 19, 2025 appeal to this office, Ms. Nardizzi stated, “Attorney Roche’s justification for not removing the redacted portions of the internal settlements, citing The Globe decision, reason (10)…is legally unconvincing. This exemption pertains to private personnel matters, not formal ULPs filed under Chapter 150E…In regard to the District’s claim of

Superintendent Jennifer Voyik SPR25/3053 Page 3 October 31, 2025 attorney-client privilege over 17 pages of emails, your ruling required a detailed description of each record, including the author, date, and the substance of the communication. The District’s log omits nearly all of that information…The District has also failed to acknowledge or respond to a key portion of my request: communications between the Superintendent and the Union President…” In an October 22, 2025 email communication to Ms. Nardizzi and this office, the District stated the following: With respect to your request for ‘communications between the Superintendent and the Union President’ regarding the MUP, no such communications exist. With respect to your assertion that the document attached to your October 20, 2025 email raises questions about the accuracy of the log received in the last response addressed to you, please be aware that your records request was directed to the South Hadley Public Schools. Please note that the school system is not a recipient of the emails you attached. As such, when the South Hadley Public Schools pulled the records they had in their possession that are responsive to your request, the email chain would not have appeared if the School did not actually have a copy of that email chain. After confirming with my client this morning, my client did not have a copy of this email chain until your email dated October 20, 2025. In an October 22, 2025 email communication to the District and this office, Ms. Nardizzi stated, “[a]s a reminder, this is my original records request: Copies of all email communications between the District, its representatives, and involved parties (including union representatives, legal counsel, members of the School Committee, and the DLR…’ If I am not mistaken, I believe in this circumstance the district counsel would qualify as a representative.” Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In this case, based on the District’s responses, and the information provided in Ms. Nardizzi’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the District possesses additional records responsive to the request. If the District does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such

Superintendent Jennifer Voyik SPR25/3053 Page 4 October 31, 2025 withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). The District must clarify this matter. 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. 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. 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

Superintendent Jennifer Voyik SPR25/3053 Page 5 October 31, 2025 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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. Item 1(a) – Settlement Agreements In its October 17, 2025 response, the District stated, “with respect to the settlement agreements for MUP-22-9210, MUP-23-9828, and MUP-23-10325…the specific information redacted from [the] document[s] include information consistent with the Globe decision under reason (10): ‘agreement by an agency to remove a letter from a personnel file.’ As such, the District maintains the redactions to th[e] document[s] as previously produced to you are appropriate.” The controlling case for redactions made to a settlement agreement is Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). In the Globe decision, the court listed the following information as properly subject to redaction within a settlement agreement under the personnel clause of Exemption (c): (1) promotion of grade; (2) compensation at a different salary grade; (3) adjustment in compensation; (4) waiver of bumping rights and/or recall rights; (5) entitlement to remain on administrative leave; (6) requirement to tender a letter of resignation; (7) demand of voluntary resignation; (8) reinstatement; (9) layoff; (10) agreement by an agency to remove a letter from a personnel file; (11) agreement by an agency concerning the providing of references and their contents; (12) the requirement that an employee meet with a supervisor to review progress of assigned matters; (13) adjustment of an agency’s records to reflect an employee’s status; (14) adjustment or continuation of employee benefits, such as unemployment assistance, COBRA, and retirement benefits, and agreement regarding back wages; (15) recitations concerning grievances, including agreement to withdraw a grievance and acknowledgment by an employee of the absence of a pending grievance; (16) a statement of resolution of all claims concerning termination of employment and prior disciplinary actions, (17) agreement to turn in agency property, (18) global resolution involving the

Superintendent Jennifer Voyik SPR25/3053 Page 6 October 31, 2025 entering of a nolle prosequi by a prosecutorial official; (19) language affirming an agency’s legitimate concern for discipline and an employee’s receipt of a memorandum of verbal discipline; and (20) completion by an employer of harassment training. Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34-35. Item 2(a) – Emails Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007 (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the ground upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its October 17th response, the District provided a privilege log identifying eighteen (18) records that it intends to withhold under the attorney-client privilege, and includes the dates, authors, recipients, and descriptions of the records, and the basis on which the privilege is being claimed. Where the District has provided a detailed description of each record withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, including the names of the authors and recipients, the dates, the substance, and the grounds for claiming the privilege, and has also confirmed that the communications were made in confidence and that the privilege has not been waived, I find the District has met its burden to withhold the eighteen (18) responsive records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claim made by the District to redact the records responsive to Item 1(a), the District must provide this

Superintendent Jennifer Voyik SPR25/3053 Page 7 October 31, 2025 office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the District’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. 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. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian or 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 District is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the records responsive to Item 1(a) for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jess Nardizzi Kimberly M. Roche, Esq.