Linda Catanzariti v. North Attleborough, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253220)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 14, 2025 SPR25/3220 Patricia McNielly Town Clerk Town of North Attleborough 43 South Washington Street North Attleborough, MA 02760 Dear Ms. McNielly: I have received the petition of Linda Catanzariti appealing the response of the Town of North Attleborough (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 9, 2025, Ms. Catanzariti requested “the HR Director’s letter to the Town Manager concerning the harassment & bullying complaint against the North Attleboro Public School administration.” The Town initially responded on August 19, 2025, assigning the request reference number PRR-25-107. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2922 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 14, 2025). In my October 14th determination, I ordered the Town to clarify its claims to withhold the responsive record under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Town responded on October 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Catanzariti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3220, 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. 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

Patricia McNielly SPR25/3220 Page 2 November 14, 2025 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 Town’s October 17th Response In its October 17, 2025 response, the Town continued to cite Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Catanzariti stated, “I do not believe the Town’s response adequately satisfies the reason why they are refusing my request.” 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 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. 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

Patricia McNielly SPR25/3220 Page 3 November 14, 2025 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. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, 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 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). This clause requires 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. Under Exemption (c), the Town stated: The Town possesses records responsive to your requests, which are exempt and withheld from disclosure as they constitute: [1] Personnel information… [2] Materials/data relation to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy… Here, the public interest does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of the invasion of privacy addressed below. The Town has communicated the findings

Patricia McNielly SPR25/3220 Page 4 November 14, 2025 of its investigation to you in a letter dated July 23, 2025 which did not find any violation of Town policies. Any further disclosures would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy with respect to other employees that were alleged and found not to have engaged in wrongdoing… Here, the PETA balancing test results in a finding that disclosing these categories of information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy… As to the first element, the disclosure of the requested information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, who would find that dissemination of information relating to complaints of harassment would certainly result in embarrassment for those alleged to have engaged of such behavior in having such sensitive information about them revealed publicly. It also would impact the accused’s reputation to release unsubstantiated allegations about them, which could be then shared publicly with the perspective that they did engage in wrongdoing… As to the second element, the information is of a highly personal nature, in that it contains references to matters that could potentially lead to stigma (unsubstantiated allegations of harassment, being accused of harassment) which by law constitutes highly personal information. These matters clearly affect one’s reputation… As to the third element, the same information is available by way of emails that you provided to the Town as part of the investigation and by way of the Town’s July 23, 2025 letter to you on the matter which addressed the investigation’s conclusion. The Town has not publicly released any other information about this matter. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Town’s claims to withhold the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the Town must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the records, I will return them to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). 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. Massachusetts 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.

Patricia McNielly SPR25/3220 Page 5 November 14, 2025 Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of 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 Town is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Linda Catanzariti