Claire Ogden v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20253811)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3811 Cindy Amara, Esq. City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Amara: I have received the petition of Claire Ogden appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 3, 2025, Ms. Ogden requested: [r]ecords that reflect the 2024 equal opportunity investigation against Somerville Public Library employee [an identified individual] as well as his continued employment. This should include: [1] Complaints that the city has received about [an identified individual], from Jan. 1, 2020 – present[;] [and] [2] A copy (with redactions if necessary) of the 2024 equal opportunity investigation against [an identified individual]. The City initially responded on October 21, 2025 and November 24, 2025. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3112 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 5, 2025) and SPR25/3475 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 9, 2025). In my December 9th determination, I found that it is unclear how all of the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information under Exemption (c) and ordered the City to clarify whether segregable portions can be provided. The City responded on December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Ogden petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3811, was opened as a result. 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

Cindy Amara, Esq. SPR25/3811 Page 2 January 8, 2026 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. 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 21st, November 24th, and December 23rd Responses In its October 21, 2025 response, the City stated, “[p]lease be advised the records you have requested contain confidential personnel documents exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c), G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c).” In its November 24, 2025 response, the City identified the responsive records as follows: [1] A 2024 Equal Opportunity investigation report concerning allegations of workplace misconduct made against [an identified individual]. [2] Approximately 18 emails or documents containing written complaints or conveying verbal complaints about [an identified individual’s] workplace conduct submitted to the Library Director and/or Human Resources Department between January 1, 2020 and the present. In its December 23, 2025 response, the City provided the responsive records redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Ogden argued, “[i]t seems more than reasonable to expect at least some substantive content to be included in the copies of these complaints.”

Cindy Amara, Esq. SPR25/3811 Page 3 January 8, 2026 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 – 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. 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

Cindy Amara, Esq. SPR25/3811 Page 4 January 8, 2026 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 support of its redactions under Exemption (c), the City stated, “…redactions [were] made to protect personnel and private information exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c).” In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the City’s claims to redact the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the City must provide this office un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the records, I will return them 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 impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal

Cindy Amara, Esq. SPR25/3811 Page 5 January 8, 2026 community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Claire Ogden Susan Tkaczuk Matthew Sirigu, Esq.