Alex Carnevale v. Lowell, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253104)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 5, 2025 SPR25/3104 John Pyers Records Access Officer City of Lowell 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Mr. Pyers: I have received the petition of Alex Carnevale appealing the response of the City of Lowell (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 7, 2025, Mr. Carnevale requested the following: [A]ccess to and copies of all records maintained by the Lowell Police Department that relate to [an identified individual’s] employment candidacy and/or personnel history, including but not limited to: [1] [An identified individual’s] personnel file as defined in M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C – including hiring materials, applications, background investigations, interview notes, evaluations, commendations, and any documents used to make employment decisions; [2] Any internal affairs or professional standards investigations in which [an identified individual] is named, whether as a subject, witness, or complainant; [3] Any disciplinary findings, reports, or communications regarding [an identified individual’s] performance, suspension, or termination (if applicable); [4] Any correspondence between the Lowell Police Department and other agencies (municipal, state, or POST Commission) regarding [an identified individual’s] candidacy or employment status; [5] Any notes or memoranda created during the hiring process or maintained in departmental internal files concerning [an identified individual]; [6] Any audio or video recordings made during or in connection to [an identified individual’s] interview, background investigation, or evaluation process, including recordings made by departmental personnel or third-party investigators acting on behalf of the department. 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

John Pyers SPR25/3104 Page 2 November 5, 2025 The City responded on October 7, and October 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Carnevale petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3104, was opened as a result. 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, Mr. Carnevale’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 7th and October 21st Responses In its October 1, 2025 response, the City stated, “[y]our request has been forwarded to the appropriate department(s).” In its October 21, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Additionally, the City stated, “[p]lease be advised, you do not meet the definition of an employee as defined in M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C.”

John Pyers SPR25/3104 Page 3 November 5, 2025 Current Appeal In his October 23, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Carnevale objected to the City withholding responsive records under Exemption (c) and stated, “[m]y request was not limited to a personnel file under M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C. It sought access to records created or used by the department in evaluating my candidacy for appointment as a police officer, interagency communications, interview materials, medical examination materials, and other background information used in the public hiring process…” 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.

John Pyers SPR25/3104 Page 4 November 5, 2025 Under Exemption (c), the City states, “[y]our personnel files will not be released under Exemption C of the Massachusetts Public Records Law.” Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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 withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The City cites Exemption (c) without an explanation of the applicability of the exemption to the responsive records. Particularly, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. Additionally, it is unclear from the City’s response which specific records the City intends to withhold. The City must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (c). It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Carnevale with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alex Carnevale Jackie Cook