Dan Riley v. Sandwich, Town of (SPR 20253843)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 14, 2026 SPR25/3843 Taylor D. White Town Clerk Town of Sandwich 100 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Mr. White: I have received the petition of Dan Riley appealing the response of the Town of Sandwich (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 9, 2025, Mr. Riley requested the following: [A]ny and all “google form” email correspondence to or from the following employees of the Sandwich Public Schools: [including one specified email address.] The google form emails I am requesting should include any communications containing any of the following keywords or phrases that got automatically inserted into the google form from an email blast to the school community on May 5th: [including a list of 12 search terms.] Please include the communications from May 4, 2025 to June 6, 2025. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2651 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 19, 2025) and SPR25/3133 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025 and December 4, 2025). In my December 4th determination, following in camera review, I found that although portions of the nomination forms may be withheld from disclosure under G. L. c. 71, § 34D, and 603 C.M.R. 23.02 & 23.07(4), the Town had not met its burden to withhold the nomination forms in their entirety under Exemption (a) or Exemption (b). Subsequently, the Town responded to Mr. Riley on December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Riley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3843, 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

Taylor D. White SPR25/3843 Page 2 January 14, 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 Town’s December 17th Response In its December 17, 2025 response, the Town cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive award nomination Google Forms. See 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 – Personnel 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

Taylor D. White SPR25/3843 Page 3 January 14, 2026 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 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 17, 2025 response, under Exemption (c), the Town argues the following: Upon further review of the December 4, 2025, Public Records Division correspondence, the Town has concluded that the Google Form that was reviewed in camera by the Division of Public Records is exempt under M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl.26 (c). The documents are exempt from disclosure if they are:

Taylor D. White SPR25/3843 Page 4 January 14, 2026 specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; The first part of this exemption is applicable since the responses to the May 5th email include information pertaining to individual employees which is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee.” Specifically, the responses are essential and integral part of a personnel matter which makes it “absolutely exempt” from disclosure to the public as determined by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Wakefield Teachers Association v. Wakefield School Committee, 431 Mass. 792, 799 (2000). The families and caregivers submit their nominations on the Google Form and provide information about staff that is then used to determine who will receive the Gold Apple Award. The information is relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The second part of this exemption, “any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” requires that the Google Form not be made public since its disclosure may “result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities.” The balancing of whether the public interest in obtaining the information is outweighed by the seriousness of the invasion of privacy. The types of personal information which Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law is designed to protect includes reputation. The factors to be considered when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake are: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sough contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law permits the withholding of a document if its disclosure “would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities.” The release of Google Form would cause personal embarrassment and the balancing of whether the public interest in obtaining the information is outweighed by the seriousness of the invasion of privacy. The staff members nominated, or even those not nominated, may be embarrassed by the information provided by the parents and caregivers. The types of personal information which Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law is designed to protect includes reputation. In this case, the balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests of the individual at stake falls on the side of protecting their privacy interests.

Taylor D. White SPR25/3843 Page 5 January 14, 2026 Finally, this information is not readily available from other sources. Based on the information provided in the Town’s December 17th response, and in conjunction with my previous in camera review, I find that the withheld records fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and are exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798; Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV02395 at 6 (June 20, 2024) (“personnel files ... shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) and Wakefield.”). Consequently, I find that the Town has met its burden to withhold the nomination Google Forms under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Riley is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dan Riley