Joan P. Beckta v. Everett, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20253707)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 31, 2025 SPR25/3707 David O’Connor Records Access Officer Everett Public Schools 121 Vine Street Everett, MA 02149 Dear Mr. O’Connor: I have received the petition of Joan P. Beckta appealing the response of the Everett Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 8, 2025, Ms. Beckta requested, “[t]he resumes of the five finalists for the position of Superintendent of Schools. . . .” The School provided a response on October 27, 2025, and following correspondence between the parties, on October 31, 2025. Following further correspondence between the parties, the School provided an additional response on December 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Ms. Beckta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3707, 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

David O’Connor SPR25/3707 Page 2 December 31, 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 School’s October 27th, October 31st, and December 5th Responses In its October 27, 2025 response, a representative for the School stated the following: EPS does not have the records you are seeking. We are aware of only the two finalists who went before the School Committee, [an identified] Superintendent . . . and [a second identified finalist]. You have received [an identified] Superintendent[’s] . . . resume previously and we do not have a copy of [a second identified finalist’s resume]. If you can provide the names of the other candidates, we will run a search for any responsive records we have on them. . . . In an email to the School on October 27, 2025, Ms. Beckta clarified that she, “did not ask for the resumes of the finalists who got interviewed” but for, “the resumes of the five who were deemed [‘]finalists.[’]” In its October 31, 2025 response, a School representative explained that they “spoke with [School] HR and was told the Superintendent position was never posted on our internal posting system, where things like teaching positions . . . [are] posted.” The School representative further advised that they were, “going to check with the city’s HR to see if [the] request should be referred to the city.” In an email to the School on November 6, 2025, Ms. Beckta confirmed that she “still [hasn’t] gotten [a second identified finalist’s] resume” and further stated that she “[doesn’t] see any reason why [she] can’t get the resumes of the other three candidates.” In its December 5, 2025 response, a School representative stated, “[m]y understanding is that the school department does not have a copy of [a second identified finalist’s] resume. As for the other three candidates, they would have needed to be finalists and even then would be subject to personal privacy protections, if we have them.” The School representative further requested clarification regarding the three additional finalists, as noted in Ms. Beckta’s above November 6th correspondence, and asked, “[c]an you show me where they’re called finalists? . . . [J]ust assuming that if two were interviewed, then there were two finalists.” Current Appeal In her December 16, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Beckta indicates that she obtained a copy of an identified Superintendent’s resume through a separate request and, “would like the four resumes [she] [does] not currently have.” She additionally references SPR24/2239 and states, “[i]n its [d]ecision on my [a]ppeal, your office instructed the School to provide me with the two resumes it said it had already sent and clarify its claim of Exemption [to withhold] the other three. It did not.” She further states that [she] [doesn’t] understand [the School] now claiming

David O’Connor SPR25/3707 Page 3 December 31, 2025 there were only two finalists” and “how [the School] . . . is now saying they don’t have [a second identified finalist’s] resume.” Upon review, it is my understanding that the subject matter of this request and the issues raised in Ms. Beckta’s appeal are similar to those addressed in SPR24/2239 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 21, 2024). In my August 21st determination, I ordered the School to clarify whether it provided Ms. Beckta with “the resumes of the two finalist candidates for superintendent[.]” 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). 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. While this office has previously determined that resumes may be disclosed, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has found that “. . . a resume submitted as part of an employment application falls within a core category of personnel information useful in making employment

David O’Connor SPR25/3707 Page 4 December 31, 2025 decisions, and is therefore absolutely exempt from disclosure under the first clause of Exemption (c).” See AGO’s May 7, 2020 letter regarding SPR19/2399 (Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2019). Further, this finding that personnel records are absolutely exempt from disclosure has recently been upheld by the courts. Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395 (June 20, 2024) (“personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .”); See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. Conclusion Given that the courts and AGO have determined that employment applications and resumes are absolutely exempt from disclosure, accordingly, this matter is now closed. Please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joan P. Beckta Brackett Smith, Esq.