Claire Ogden v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253112)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 5, 2025 SPR25/3112 Matt Sirigu Assistant City Solicitor/Labor Counsel City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Sirigu: I have received the petition of Claire Ogden appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 3, 2025, Ms. Ogden requested, [r]ecords that reflect the 2024 equal opportunity investigation against Somerville Public Library employee [an identified individual] as well as his continued employment. This should include: [1] Complaints that the city has received about [an identified individual], from Jan. 1, 2020 – present [; and] [2] A copy (with redactions if necessary) of the 2024 equal opportunity investigation against [an identified individual]. The City responded on October 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Ogden petitioned this office, and this appeal SPR25/3112, 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). 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

Matt Sirigu SPR25/3112 Page 2 November 5, 2025 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 City’s October 21st Response In its October 21, 2025 response, the City stated “[p]lease be advised the records you have requested contain confidential personnel documents exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c), G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c).” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Ogden stated, “I am writing to appeal the City of Somerville’s denial of my public records request. The City has claimed the privacy exemption, but I disagree and believe the public has a right to know about the situation in question.’” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) 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 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Personnel Information 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.

Matt Sirigu SPR25/3112 Page 3 November 5, 2025 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. In its response, the City states, “[p]lease be advised the records you have requested contain confidential personnel documents exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c), G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c) ...Personnel information includes documents and materials that are useful in making employment decisions, and include “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). According to the Supervisor of Public Records, all of these types of records may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). Guide to the Public Records Law, Supervisor of Public Records, Dec. 2022, pg. 17. Pursuant to Exemption (c), the City will not be providing any records in response to your October 3, 2025 request.” Although the City states the “requested contain confidential personnel documents,” it is unclear what types of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the City withheld responsive records without identifying each of the records. Therefore, the City must identify what type of record(s) it has in its possession that the City withheld under Exemption (c). It is additionally uncertain how all the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. The City must clarify. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Ogden with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and it’s 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. Ms. Ogden may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Matt Sirigu SPR25/3112 Page 4 November 5, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Claire Ogden