Alex Carnevale v. Lowell, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253473)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3473 John Pyers Records Access Officer Lowell Police Department 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Mr. Pyers: I have received the petition of Alex Carnevale appealing the response of the Lowell Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 7, 2025, Mr. Carnevale requested the following: [A]ccess to and copies of all records maintained by the Lowell Police Department that relate to [an identified individual’s] employment candidacy and/or personnel history, including but not limited to: [1] [An identified individual’s] personnel file as defined in M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C – including hiring materials, applications, background investigations, interview notes, evaluations, commendations, and any documents used to make employment decisions; [2] Any internal affairs or professional standards investigations in which [an identified individual] is named, whether as a subject, witness, or complainant; [3] Any disciplinary findings, reports, or communications regarding [an identified individual’s] performance, suspension, or termination (if applicable); [4] Any correspondence between the Lowell Police Department and other agencies (municipal, state, or POST Commission) regarding [an identified individual’s] candidacy or employment status; [5] Any notes or memoranda created during the hiring process or maintained in departmental internal files concerning [an identified individual]; [6] Any audio or video recordings made during or in connection to [an identified individual’s] interview, background investigation, or evaluation process, including recordings made by departmental personnel or third-party investigators acting on behalf of the department. 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

John Pyers SPR25/3473 Page 2 December 9, 2025 Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3104 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 5, 2025). In my November 5th determination, I ordered the Department to clarify how the records could be withheld under Exemption (c). The Department responded on November 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Carnevale petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3473, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Carnevale’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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. See 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. See 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 Department’s November 24th Response In its November 24, 2025 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records in their entirety.

John Pyers SPR25/3473 Page 3 December 9, 2025 Current Appeal In his November 24, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Carnevale objected to the Department’s withholding responsive records under Exemption (c) and stated, “[i]nstead of providing the specificity and segregability analysis directed in the determination, the [Department] has again issued a blanket assertion of Exemption (c) without identifying what records exist, what categories they fall into, or why each is being withheld.” 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 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.

John Pyers SPR25/3473 Page 4 December 9, 2025 Under Exemption (c), the Department argues the following: Please be advised that any responsive records to your request were collected or created for the sole purpose of “making employment decisions” related to your candidacy for the position of police officer with the City of Lowell and are, therefore, exempt pursuant to exemption (c). You, yourself, refer to these documents as such in your request: “…that relate to my employment candidacy”, “…used to make employment decisions about me”, and “…regarding my candidacy”. 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. Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Based on the Department’s response it is unclear which specific records the Department intends to withhold nor how each of the records constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (c). It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. 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). The Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Carnevale with a response to his 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

John Pyers SPR25/3473 Page 5 December 9, 2025 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: Alex Carnevale Jackie Cook