Tom Duggan v. Methuen Public Schools (SPR 20253529)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 12, 2025 SPR25/3529 Gina Bozek, M.Ed. Record Access Officer Assistant Superintendent of Student Services Methuen Public Schools 9 Branch Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Ms. Bozek: I have received the petition of Tom Duggan, of The Valley Patriot, appealing the response of the City of Methuen (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 23, 2025, Mr. Duggan requested, “[v]ideo and audio recording of inside and outside of central office on Friday, September 19th one hour prior to and one hour after the conclusion of superintendent ... ‘retirement party’ for [an identified individual].” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3228 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 18, 2025). In my November 18th determination, I learned that the City provided Mr. Duggan with a response dated October 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Duggan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3529, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided Mr. Duggan with a supplemental response on December 11, 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). 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

Gina Bozek, M.Ed. SPR25/3529 Page 2 December 12, 2025 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 October 9th and December 11th Responses In its October 9, 2025 response, the City states, “... none of the surveillance cameras inside or outside central office have audio recording capabilities. Therefore, in reference to your request for any audio recording taken inside and outside central office on the date and time referenced above the District asserts that there are no records responsive to your request.” The City further stated that the video recording is withheld under Exemption (c) privacy of the Public Records Law. In its December 11, 2025 response, the City provided further reasons in support of withholding the video recording under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. 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 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). 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. 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

Gina Bozek, M.Ed. SPR25/3529 Page 3 December 12, 2025 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. In its October 9th response, the City asserted, The public interest in obtaining video recording inside and outside central office is substantially outweighed by the privacy interest of minor children and the other members of the public involved. In addition to administrative offices, the District’s early childhood center is also housed within central office. The video surveillance you are requesting would necessarily depict minor children and their caregivers coming and going from school located within central office. Video of young children at school is exempted from production in order to protect their privacy, interest and safety. Otherwise, anonymous members of the public, with potentially nefarious intent, could gain access to school video footage. Children seeking the advantages of the public school system do not make a free choice to be in the public arena and have not waived any privacy interest through their attendance in a public school. Video of minor children results in personal embarrassment to the children depicted. A preschool age child’s appearance on video in a space that is not generally open to the public constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, particularly in the environment of the school building in which they should expect a reasonable level of privacy and protection. Furthermore, the surveillance video you are requesting is not available from any other sources. The District is therefore required under M. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c) to withhold the requested documents from public disclosure under the privacy exception. In its December 11th response, the City further asserted, ... the public interest in obtaining video recording inside and outside central office is substantially outweighed by the privacy interest of minor children. In addition to the administrative offices, the District’s early childhood center, which is the District’s preschool programs, are also housed within central office. The early childhood center serves students three (3) to five (5) years old, and according to

Gina Bozek, M.Ed. SPR25/3529 Page 4 December 12, 2025 the enrollment data provide[d] by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for the 2024-2025 school year, approximately one hundred and forty- five (145) students attend the program at any given time. The video surveillance requested would necessarily depict minor children and their caregivers coming and going from early childhood center. Footage of young children at school must be protected to ensure students’ privacy and safety. Those children have not made a free choice to be in the public arena and have not waived any privacy interest by being in a public school. If the Supervisor of Records found that video footage of minor school children attending school did constitute a public record this would have a chilling effect on the safety and privacy interest of students. For example, any anonymous member of the public, with potentially nefarious intent, would have the ability to request video of and observe three-year-old children within their school setting. Video of minor children in school constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, regardless of the activity in which the child is involved, and results in personal embarrassment to the children depicted. Furthermore, the surveillance video requested is not available from any other sources. As such, the public interest in obtaining video recording inside and outside central office is substantially outweighed by the privacy interest of the minor children who would necessarily be depicted in the video. Based on the City’s response, although portions of the records may fall under Exemption (c), I find that the City has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records, in their entirety, under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City must clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Duggan with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 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. Duggan 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: Tom Duggan