Claire Ogden v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253475)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3475 Matt Sirigu Assistant City Solicitor/Labor Counsel City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Sirigu: I have received the petition of Claire Ogden appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 3, 2025, Ms. Ogden requested, [r]ecords that reflect the 2024 equal opportunity investigation against Somerville Public Library employee [an identified individual] as well as his continued employment. This should include: [1] Complaints that the city has received about [an identified individual], from Jan. 1, 2020 – present [; and] [2] A copy (with redactions if necessary) of the 2024 equal opportunity investigation against [an identified individual]. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3112 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 5, 2025). In my November 5th determination, I found that the City must identify the records it had in its possession and clarify how the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. The City responded on November 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Ogden petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3475, 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 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

Matt Sirigu SPR25/3475 Page 2 December 9, 2025 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 24th Response In its November 24, 2025 response, the City stated “[t]he City is in possession of the following exempt records:” [1] A 2024 Equal Opportunity investigation report concerning allegations of workplace misconduct made against [an identified individual]. [2] Approximately 18 emails or documents containing written complaints or conveying verbal complaints about [an identified individual’s] workplace conduct submitted to the Library Director and/or Human Resources Department between January 1, 2020 and the present. The City further stated, “[p]ursuant to Exemption (c), the City will not be providing the above-listed records in response to your October 3, 2025 request.” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Ogden stated, “I think it should be possible to redact information in the 18 complaints against [an identified individual]. I would therefore like to receive copies of those 18 complaints, with any necessary redactions.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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

Matt Sirigu SPR25/3475 Page 3 December 9, 2025 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 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. The term “personnel file or information” in Exemption (c) derives its meaning from the nature or character of the document, not from its label or its repository. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 5. Therefore, a custodian’s designation of materials as personnel file or information will not be dispositive to that point. Id. at 5-6. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 6 (finding that exchanges between the city and the complainant, a copy of the complaint, a notice of a claim, and letters advising of the start of an investigation did not constitute personnel files or information). In its response, the City stated, “...the records you have requested contain confidential personnel documents exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c), G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c) ... Personnel information includes documents and materials that are useful in making employment decisions, and include ‘employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). According to the Supervisor of Public Records, all of these types of records may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). Guide to the Public Records Law, Supervisor of Public Records, Dec. 2022, pg. 17.

Matt Sirigu SPR25/3475 Page 4 December 9, 2025 Although the City indicates that the records constitute personnel information, it is unclear how all the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information under Exemption (c). The City must clarify whether 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Ogden with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and it’s 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. Ms. Ogden 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: Claire Ogden