Margaret Hannemann v. Steamship Authority (SPR 20253736)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2026 SPR25/3736 Sean F. Driscoll Communications Director Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, MA 02540 Dear Mr. Driscoll: I have received the petition of Margaret Hannemann appealing the response of the Steamship Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 14, 2025, Ms. Hannemann requested “…communication between [an identified individual] and [an identified individual] in the months of September, October and November 2019, as far as the allowable free hours will take.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3560 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 17, 2025). In my December 17th determination, I found that the Authority did not satisfy its burden in responding to the request. The Authority responded on December 1, 2025 and December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s responses, Ms. Hannemann petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3736, 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. 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

Sean F. Driscoll SPR25/3736 Page 2 January 2, 2026 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 Authority’s December 1st and December 17th Responses In its December 17, 2025 response, the Authority cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law as the reason for the redactions and provided a copy of an earlier December 1, 2025 response. 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). First clause 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

Sean F. Driscoll SPR25/3736 Page 3 January 2, 2026 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 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. In its December 1st response, the Authority asserts: One (1) email responsive to this request has been redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), also known as “The Privacy Exemption.” The exemption limits its application to “personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” We find that the contents of this email, which discuss the performance and personal details of an individual employee, would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities.

Sean F. Driscoll SPR25/3736 Page 4 January 2, 2026 Additionally under Exemption (c), a second email has been redacted to remove an individual’s private email address. I find that an individual’s private email address constitutes an “intimate detail” and that, furthermore, the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the privacy interest associated with disclosure. Therefore, I have removed all email addresses from the files that are not either from a Steamship Authority domain or another clearly commercial domain. Based on the Authority’s response, with regard to the first redacted email, it is unclear how “the contents of this email, which discuss the performance and personal details of an individual employee” constitutes one of the core categories of personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is additionally uncertain how the information contains intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is also not clear whether this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Further, the Authority did not provide information with respect to examining whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. The Authority must clarify these matters. However, to the extent that the Authority redacted private email addresses from the responsive records, the Authority may permissibly withhold such information from disclosure under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Ms. Hannemann 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. Ms. Hannemann may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Margaret Hannemann