Patrick Courtney v. Hopedale, Town of (SPR 20253297)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 24, 2025 SPR25/3297 Mitch F. Ruscitti Town Administrator Town of Hopedale 78 Hopedale Street Hopedale, MA 1747 Dear Mr. Ruscitti: I have received the petition of Patrick Courtney appealing the response of the Town of Hopedale (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 22, 2025, Mr. Courtney requested “certified payroll records for all work performed on the Hopedale Junior and Senior School Roof Replacement Project. I would also like to request the prevailing wage rate sheet for this project.” The Town responded on October 6, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Subsequently, I understand Mr. Courtney paid the fees, and the Town again responded on November 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Courtney petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3297, 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. 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. 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

Mitch F. Ruscitti SPR25/3297 Page 2 November 24, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Courtney states, “the Town of Hopedale has redacted the names and addresses from certified payroll records that I requested and paid for.” Based upon a review of Mr. Courtney’s appeal petition, I understand that he objects only to the redactions of names and addresses, and not to any other redactions made by the Town, nor the fee estimate provided to him by the Town. The Town’s November 6th Response In its November 6, 2025 response, the Town provided certified payroll records in redacted form, and cited Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law for the redactions. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). 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 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

Mitch F. Ruscitti SPR25/3297 Page 3 November 24, 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 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. In its November 6th response, under Exemption (c), the Town argues that “exemption C allows for redaction of personal information that would constitute an unwanted invasion of personal privacy.” Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such

Mitch F. Ruscitti SPR25/3297 Page 4 November 24, 2025 disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. In its November 6th response, under Exemption (f), the Town argues that “federal law enforcement has been involved with this project, and the redactions would also be protected under MGL c. 4 section 7 (26)(f).” Certified Payroll Records The Town is advised that disclosure of certified payroll records is governed by G. L. c. 149, § 27B, which states in relevant part: Every contractor, subcontractor or public body engaged in said public works by an agency ... or municipality or any subdivision thereof to which sections twenty- seven and twenty-seven A apply shall keep a true and accurate record of all mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers employed thereon, showing the name, address and occupational classification of each such employee on said works, and the hours worked by, and the wages paid to, each such employee, and shall submit weekly to the awarding authority by mail, first class postage prepaid, or by electronic mail, certified payroll records that shall consist of a complete copy of those records ... . . . The above-mentioned copies of payroll records and statements of compliance shall be available for inspection by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority for such inspection and copying. G. L. c. 149, § 27B. The statute provides that copies of certified payroll records must be available for inspection and copying by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority. Id. The statute does not limit disclosure, but rather evidences a legislative intent to make these

Mitch F. Ruscitti SPR25/3297 Page 5 November 24, 2025 records available for inspection. Where the language of the statute does not restrict disclosure, the statutory right of citizens to inspect under the Public Records Law prevails. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn et al., 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979) (statute providing that records be available to town officials does not exempt records since statute does not limit disclosure to the public); see also G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) (exempting those records which are specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute). G. L. c. 149, § 27B evidences a legislative intent to make that information which is required to be provided by a contractor to the awarding authority open to public inspection. Further, in a 2002 Superior Court case, a construction company hired for a public construction project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) sought injunctive relief by asserting a privacy claim under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to prevent disclosure of the addresses and telephone numbers of the workers listed on the certified payroll records after the Supervisor of Records issued an order to the MWRA to disclose the records to the requesting party. See D’Amico, Inc., et. al. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No. 0284-CV-00369 (Nov. 6, 2002). In his April 29, 2002 finding, Judge Thomas Conley denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating, “[t]here is very little likelihood, if any, of the plaintiff prevailing in this matter, and there has been no showing of irreparable harm.” Id. In this case, given that the names and addresses of the individuals who are the subjects of the certified payroll records are public under G. L. c. 149, § 27B, the Town may not withhold this information under Exemption (c) or any of the exemptions enumerated in the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Courtney 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. Courtney may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Courtney