John Saia v. Malden, City of (SPR 20253266)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 19, 2025 SPR25/3266 Joanne Perperian Public Records Access Officer City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of John Saia appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 30, 2025, Mr. Saia requested the following: [1] Malden Community Connections grant application materials that were submitted and approved so that $11,000 would be available for Malden’s annual Juneteenth celebration. [2] Public records that communicate the review and approval process by which the city seal was permitted to be used on flyers for Malden’s 2025 Juneteenth event at the Salemwood school. [3] Any public records that constitute planning for the 2025 Juneteenth event, including: - the use of a committee, its organization, members, and their roles within the committee, and any disclosed affiliations[;] - methods of vendor recruitment and outreach[;] - vendor participation[;] - funds spent by Malden for any part of the event[.] The City responded on November 5, 2025, assigning the request reference number 2025- 0386. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Saia petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3266, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on November 12, 2025. 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3266 Page 2 November 19, 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. 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 November 5th and November 12th Responses In its November 5, 2025 response, the City provided responsive records redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City identified the responsive records as follows: Human Resources: Please see the attached record of vendor payments. OSPCD: Please see attached applications and W9. DEI Coordinator: There is no review or approval process for using the city seal for events that are sponsored by the city. If the city sponsors an event, the city seal is added to the event literature. The Juneteenth Committee is a separate entity from the City of Malden. They facilitated their own vendor search, outreach, participation, recruitment, and event planning. The Committee facilitated meetings with the city on the following dates to provide updates on the event: March 18, April 2, April 30, and June 17. In its supplemental response on November 12, 2025, the City provide further explanation of its redactions under Exemption (c). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Saia stated, “[a]n applicant for that money communicated that the vast majority of their event’s budget would go towards ‘local’ vendors. How can the public

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3266 Page 3 November 19, 2025 tell whether or not that is true if the city redacts so much of the expense items. Only three expenses were revealed. It does not appear to be a valid use of exemption (c) to keep not just the vendor expenses private for a public event…” 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). 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 City stated: Please note that any personal information, including names, residential addresses and tax ID numbers were redacted in accordance with Exemption (c). In addition,

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3266 Page 4 November 19, 2025 a separate warrant was not created for the (3) Juneteenth vendors; rather these invoices, along with the department’s regular weekly invoices were combined on Warrant #98 and the Schedule of Bills Payable. The redacted transactions on these records include other fees relating to drug testing, job postings, and third- party professional services – none of which were included in Mr. Saia’s October 30, 2025 FOIA request. Although the City may properly withhold the identified tax ID numbers, it is unclear how all of the City’s redactions fall under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In this case, the City has not established how the withheld names, residential addresses, and additional transactions constitute intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The City must also provide information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Saia with a response to the 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. Mr. Saia may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Saia