Brian DeLacey v. Malden, City of (SPR 20253777)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3777 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 [sic] 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[;] [5] [A]ny other email using any combination of the words used in this description: 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 SPR25/3777 Page 2 January 8, 2026 “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 Appeal and Petition This request was the subject of a previous appeal and a petition from the City. See SPR25/2653 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2025) and SPR25/3502 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 11, 2025). In my December 11th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) for redacting the responsive records. Subsequently, the City responded on December 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. DeLacey petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3777, 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3777 Page 3 January 8, 2026 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. 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 28th and December 22nd Response In its previous October 28, 2025 response, the City provided numerous records in redacted form, and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In its December 22, 2025 response, the City further elaborated on its claims for redacting the records pursuant to Exemption (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). 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 SPR25/3777 Page 4 January 8, 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 December 22nd response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: The redaction of personal email addresses, phone numbers, and home addresses was conducted in accordance with Exemption (c) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. . . . Several individuals submitted grant applications on behalf of their organizations using personal contact information, including personal email accounts (such as Gmail, Verizon, and AOL), as well as home addresses and personal phone numbers. Disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is therefore exempt from mandatory disclosure. In addition, Employer Identification Numbers were also redacted on all W-9’s. These redactions were necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with applicable public records law and to protect the personal privacy of the individuals involved. Please be advised that personal email addresses, which are generally not listed within any sort of directory or available by any other means of a public search, similar in many respects to unlisted phone numbers, favor a finding of non-disclosure. The public interest in disclosure of personal email addresses and personal phone numbers does not outweigh the privacy interests associated with the redacted information. Consequently, I find that the City has met its burden under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact personal email addresses and personal phone numbers. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). However, the City has not demonstrated that home addresses are intimate details of a highly personal nature or that the disclosure of such information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether the home addresses are available from other sources. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The City must clarify this.

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3777 Page 5 January 8, 2026 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