Kristi Pakkila v. Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District (SPR 20253189)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 13, 2025 SPR25/3189 Eric DeHays Public Records Officer Ashburnham Westminster Regional School District 10 Oakmont Drive Ashburnham, MA 01430 Dear Mr. DeHays: I have received the petition of Kristi Pakkila appealing the response of the Ashburnham Westminster Regional 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 October 14, 2025, Ms. Pakkila requested “[t]he professional resume(s) of [three identified individuals] along with copies of his/her professional certifications, redacted of any information that is statutorily exempt from disclosure.” The District responded on October 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Pakkila petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3189, 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). 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. Att’y 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. 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

Eric DeHays SPR25/3189 Page 2 November 13, 2025 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 District’s October 27th response In its October 27, 2025 response, the District stated that the requested resumes are “subject to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law.” The District further stated, regarding the requested professional certifications, “[e]ducator certifications can be looked up on the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s [identified] website.” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Pakkila states, “I request that the Supervisor order the District to release redacted copies of the requested résumés or otherwise justify each specific redaction, consistent with the narrow construction of Exemption (c) and documentation of each professionals’ credentials.” She also states, “search results using the public educator look-up tool failed to identify [an identified individual] General Education teacher or [an identified individual] Board Certified Behavior Analyst. [An identified individual] is shown as a licensed special educator; however, it does not provide me evidence of the Reading Certification required to provide evidenced based reading intervention to my dyslexic child.” 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.

Eric DeHays SPR25/3189 Page 3 November 13, 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 citing Exemption (c) to withhold the resumes, the District states, “[t]he resumes requested are considered part of the employees’ personnel files or information and are therefore subject to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). This clause specifically exempts ‘personnel and medical files or information’ from mandatory disclosure.” Regarding the requested “professional resumes”, which would be submitted as part of the employment application, I find that the records falls within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and is exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .” Id. at 6. Regarding the requested “professional certifications”, it is permissible for the custodian of records to provide access to records via a link to a website. See G. L. c. 66, §6A(d) (“If the public record requested is available on a public website ... the records access officer may furnish the public record by providing reasonable assistance in locating the requested record on the public website.”); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.04 (5)(e) (“A records access officer shall ... to the extent feasible, furnish the public records by providing reasonable assistance in locating the records on an appropriately indexed and searchable public website”); 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (2)(a) (“A records access officer shall inform a requester of the availability of records online to avoid delays and fees associated with the provision of public records”). However, based on Ms. Pakkila’s appeal and a review of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s website, it appears the link to the website provided by the District results in some, but not all, of the requested “professional certifications.” Consequently, the District must provide reasonable assistance to Ms. Pakkila in locating the requested records on the public website. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Pakkila with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Eric DeHays SPR25/3189 Page 4 November 13, 2025 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: Kristi Pakkila