James M. Crowley v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253090)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3090 Seah Levy Public Records Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of James M. Crowley appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 17, 2025, Mr. Crowley requested the following: …any and all information held by the [C]ity as it relates to the transfer of [an identified individual] from the Criminal Investigations Section (CIS) of the Cambridge Police Department. This would have occurred in the latter months of 2021. In specific, and directly related to a MA Department of Labor Relations ruling in favor of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association (CPPOA), I am seeking notes, reports, recordings, emails and other information held by the city as to the reason [an identified individual] was transferred without his request. Please include any documents and/or reports that support any claim(s) that [an identified individual] was somehow a detriment to the daily operations of the CIS… Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2462 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 3, 2025). In my September 3rd determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) for redacting responsive records. Subsequently, the City responded on October 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Crowley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3090, was opened as a result. 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

Seah Levy SPR25/3090 Page 2 October 31, 2025 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 City’s October 3rd Response In its October 3, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested record in its entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In his October 22, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Crowley objected to the City withholding the record under Exemption (c) and stated, “[i]t is widely known that the city, having been ordered to provide [an identified individual] and the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association with a reason for this ‘discipline’ stated that his actions related to SI-2018- 004…This would make the involuntary transfer punitive in nature and thus discoverable under Mack.” 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).

Seah Levy SPR25/3090 Page 3 October 31, 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. Under Exemption (c), the City states the following: Review of the requested record has determined that it makes no mention of the Professional Standards Investigation SI 2018-004, and additionally was not create[d] as a result of, and is not related to, any other misconduct matter. As this record is not related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation, it is not removed from Exemption (c)’s scope for this reason. The record in question meets the test for Exemption (c) as it contains personnel information that relates to a specifically named individual. In fact, knowledge of the individual’s identity was need[ed] to locate this record. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432-33 (1983). Furthermore, the requested record falls into the classification of records outline by the case of Wakefield Teachers Association v. Wakefield School Committee, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). In Wakefield the courts held that certain types of records fall within the specific core of categories of records and may be withheld under this exemption including “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” The Requester has specifically asked for documentation of a “transfer” of an employee, which is comparable in nature to a promotion, demotion, or

Seah Levy SPR25/3090 Page 4 October 31, 2025 termination, in that it establishes a trajectory or path of an individual’s career within an agency, and their current status in that agency. The record requested falls within the core category of personnel records, and there are no segregable portions of this record that can be released. The City is advised that the Supreme Judicial Court has held that Exemption (c) “clearly and unambiguously states that the privacy exemption does not apply to an ‘investigation’ of law enforcement misconduct.” Eric Mack v. Dist. Att’y for the Bristol Dist., 494 Mass. 1, 12 (2024). Additionally, the Court held that the phrase “related to,” as used in Exemption (c), “is construed broadly.” Id. at 12 n.9. Specifically, the Court held that the exemption did not apply to records related to an investigation whether two police officers had committed any crimes or violated their department’s use of force policy. Id. at 12. Exemption (c) did not apply even where the investigation concluded there was no basis to charge the officers with crimes. Id. at 6. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claim made by the City to withhold the responsive record in its entirety, the City must provide this office with a 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 City’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. 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.

Seah Levy SPR25/3090 Page 5 October 31, 2025 Order Accordingly, the City 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: James M. Crowley