Laurel N. Billings v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20253751)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 6, 2026 SPR25/3751 Christine M. Wilda Associate Chancellor for Compliance University of Massachusetts, Amherst 340F Whitmore Building 181 President’s Drive Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Laurel N. Billings appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (UMass) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 5, 2025, Ms. Billings requested, “. . . all emails sent or received by [an identified] Professor between Nov. 1, 2024 and Jan. 20, 2025 that contain my name . . . or its common variant spellings. . . . Responsive records are likely to include, but should not be limited to, emails between [identified] Professors at University of Michigan. Please include all replies and attachments.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3458 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 8, 2025). In my December 8th determination, I found that where it appears the email records were created or received by the university employee, it is unclear how the records can be withheld under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. UMass responded on December 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Billings petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3751, 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). 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

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3751 Page 2 January 6, 2026 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 her appeal, Ms. Billings states, “UMass repeats the same rationale that your determination expressly rejected—namely, that the ‘sum and substance’ of the emails does not relate to University business.” UMass’ December 19th Response In its December 19, 2025 response, UMass cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. 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). 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 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).

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3751 Page 3 January 6, 2026 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 response, UMass states, “[i]t is clear from the review of each and every email that the sum and substance have nothing to do with University business. That being said, because University email was used, it is a record made or received by a public agency of each record. An exemption applies however, which is exemption (c) which provides that personal matters are not public records. Such is clearly the case here and we stand ready to provide the Supervisor of Records – assuming in camera protections are provided - with all the emails so that you may concur with our conclusion.” In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of UMass’ claim to withhold the records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, UMass must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3751 Page 4 January 6, 2026 impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, UMass is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laurel N. Billings