Paul Joy v. Belmont, Town of (SPR 20253446)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3446 Ellen O’Brien Cushman Town Clerk Town of Belmont 455 Concord Avenue Belmont, MA 02478 Dear Ms. Cushman: I have received the petition of Paul Joy appealing the response of the Town of Belmont (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 4, 2025, Mr. Joy requested the following: All Communications & Documents re: [an identified individual’s] Foreclosure, Appointments, and Property Valuations…. [1] All communications (emails, memos, texts via town devices) between Select Board members, staff, [an identified individual], or any third parties regarding [an identified individual’s] financial status, mortgage delinquency, or foreclosure proceedings (Case 25 SM 003091, filed Oct. 9, 2025 in MA Land Court) from January 1, 2020, to present. [2] Appointment & Vetting records: Full files on [an identified individual’s] appointment to the Board of Assessors (May 2024), including background checks, financial disclosures, references, and any ethics reviews. [3] Valuation Docs: internal notes, comps, abatement applications, or DOR correspondence (if any) related to assessments of … Payson Road from FY2015- 2025. The Town responded on November 20, 2025, and assigned reference number 25-1405 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Joy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3446, was opened as a result. 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

Ellen O’Brien Cushman SPR25/3446 Page 2 December 5, 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 Town’s November 20th Response In its November 20, 2025 response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Joy contends, “[t]he Town denied the entire request under Exemption (c)…. This denial is improper.... I request that you order production of the responsive records (with narrowly tailored redactions only if truly necessary) and waive any fees due to the improper blanket denial.” 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).

Ellen O’Brien Cushman SPR25/3446 Page 3 December 5, 2025 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 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).

Ellen O’Brien Cushman SPR25/3446 Page 4 December 5, 2025 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 states, “[t]his request is closed pursuant to Exemption C of the Public Records Law, unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The disclosure of requested documents may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Town also did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining this information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The Town must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear how the records can be withheld in their entirety. The Town must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Further, based on the Town’s response, it is unclear what records it possesses that it withheld from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”). Therefore, the Town must identify the records it has in its possession that it is withholding under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Joy 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. Joy may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Ellen O’Brien Cushman SPR25/3446 Page 5 December 5, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Joy