Julie Nardone v. Ashland, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20253484)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3484 Cindy Livingstone Town Clerk Town of Ashland 101 Main Street Ashland, MA 01721 Dear Ms. Livingstone: I have received the petition of Julie Nardone appealing the response of the Town of Ashland (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 22, 2025, Ms. Nardone requested, “the resume of [an identified individual], who I understand is or was the current Director of Planning & Economic Development.” The Town responded on October 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Nardone petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3484, 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

Cindy Livingstone SPR25/3484 Page 2 December 9, 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. The Town’s October 22nd Response In its October 22, 2025 response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Nardone contends, “I am appealing Ashland Town Clerk and RAO [identified individual’s] denial of my request to receive the resume of the current Director of Planning and Economic Development…. Oddly, the finalists for the Town Planner position are supposed to be interviewed by the Planning Board at one of their public meetings with consent to hire…. It is in Ashland’s Town Charter as pasted below. Apparently, someone decided to ignore the charter and create a new hiring protocol…. When I asked via email more recently, the chair said only she attended the interviews, that no one else was available.” 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

Cindy Livingstone SPR25/3484 Page 3 December 9, 2025 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 – 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 Town states the following: Please be advised, however, that the Town is only permitted to disclose public records in response to your request(s). Pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), personnel information and/or any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are expressly exempt as “public records.” The resume you are seeking is precluded as a public record and is not disclosable as set forth in G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). As this is the only document sought by your request, the Town

Cindy Livingstone SPR25/3484 Page 4 December 9, 2025 does not have any public records in its possession, custody, or control responsive to your request. Where the requested resume was submitted as part of the employment application, I find that the record falls within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and is exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .” Id. at 6. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Ms. Nardone is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Julie Nardone