Brian DeLacey v. Malden, City of (SPR 20253502)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 11, 2025 SPR25/3502 Joanne Perperian Public Records Access Officer City of Malden Office of the City Solicitor 215 Pleasant Street, Suite 420 Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: I have received the petition of Brian DeLacey, of Malden News Network, appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 8, 2025, Mr. DeLacey requested the following records from June 6, 2025 to August 8, 2025: [1] [G]rant “applications” and/or proposals as well as award letters, rejection letters (denials of application for an reason) and/or other agreements, as well as any contracts, modifications and/or amendments in addition to budgets and or financial statements sought in connection with these public records; [2] [R]eports on progress of projects, as well as any correspondence or communications received, reviewed, submitted, or considered - including types described in the 5/20/25 “City of Malden News Flash” - for grants or funds described in that formal, public announcement; [3] [A]ny and all email communications or correspondence of any sort (including TEXT messages or other messaging applications for each of the identified documents and or other records identified in (1) and (2) above; [4] [A]ny email created, received, sent, shared, or deleted which relate to these grant applications and other records identified in (1) which have been created by or exchanged with [an identified] email address… e.g. “questions” (asked or answered), directions, referrals, guidance, decisions etc[;] 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3502 Page 2 December 11, 2025 [5] [A]ny other email using any combination of the words used in this description: “Grants funded through the Surrounding Community Agreement with Encore Boston Harbor[;]” [6] [A] complete extract of all records stored within “the City of Malden Participant Portal” as described on the MCCG-Page[;] [7] [A]ny contract, communications, including privacy policy reviews, or other payments or requests for payment by “Neighborly Software”, a company that appears to be the creator, licensor, and cloud provider of the “Malden Participant Portal” platform[;] [8] [A]ny records or recommendations, analysis, preference or priority created during any review of these grant applications, including any email, spreadsheet or other form of presentation or correspondence to evaluate, prioritize, describe, grade, score or recommend any application the amount of each and every request made and grant given[;] [9] [A]ny email received by or created by Mayor Gary Christenson from any hardware device and any messaging address he is known to use, whether that digital end point is owned by him on a personal basis or by the City of Malden or any other public source of funding. On August 14, 2025, Mr. DeLacey modified Items 3, 4, 5 and 9 to seek responsive records from “any email account City of Malden or privately created, cell phone whether owned by the City of Malden or privately owned to be searched for text, email and other media messaging applications used by these [four identified individuals].” Mr. DeLacey also included six “key search terms” for the responsive records. I understand the City assigned reference number 2025-0241 to this request. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the City. See SPR25/2653 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2025). In my September 12th determination, I found that the City met its burden for an extension of 30 business days. Subsequently, the City responded on October 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. DeLacey petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3502, 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,

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3502 Page 3 December 11, 2025 § 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. DeLacey argues the following: The City’s response provided many records with the caveat - “Please note redactions were made in accordance with Exemption ( c ).” As you will be able to see from a cursory review of the response, there are blanket redactions which, in my view, are plainly not allowed. These extensive redactions appear to be a blanket effort by the City to hide lots of information - including names, email addresses, contact information, business and organization addresses. This opaqueness is clearly not the intent of Exemption ( c ). . . . We ask that your review order the City to adhere to the letter and the intent of Public Records Law and remove these unlawful redactions and reissue unredacted, in-the-clear records. The City’s October 28th Response In its October 28, 2025 response, the City provides numerous records in redacted form, and cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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).

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3502 Page 4 December 11, 2025 First Clause – Medical and Personnel Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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 – 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).

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3502 Page 5 December 11, 2025 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 October 28th response, the City states that “redactions were made in accordance with Exemption (c).” Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the redacted information constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is also uncertain how the redacted information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the redacted information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the City did not provide information with respect to the balancing test, which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. DeLacey 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. DeLacey may further 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: Brian DeLacey