William Brower v. West Springfield, Town of (SPR 20253848)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 13, 2026 SPR25/3848 Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. Chief of Staff and General Counsel Town of West Springfield 26 Central Street, Suite 32 West Springfield, MA 01089 Dear Attorney O’Brien Scott: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the Town of West Springfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 20, 2025, Mr. Brower sought the following from January 1, 2020 to present: [1] All training records, certificates, completion dates, and comprehension assessment for [an identified individual] and any prior West Springfield VSO on Chapter 115 benefits, appeal procedures, public-records law, ethics, professional conduct, and customer-service standards (including mandatory annual training under M.G.L. c. 115 § 3B)[;] [2] Current job description, employment contract, code-of-conduct agreement, and any performance standards signed by [an identified individual] and prior VSOs[;] [3] All internal policies, manuals, or guidance documents (town or EOVS-issued) governing VSO duties, ethical standards, impartiality, appeal assistance, and use of profanity or intimidation toward veterans. Where these documents are publicly available online, please provide the exact URL and document title/code instead of printing copies[;] [4] All complaints, grievances, or disciplinary records against any West Springfield town employee (not limited to the VSO) involving use of profanity, intimidation/retaliation against complainants, or refusal to perform mandantory duties[;] [5] All complaints, grievances, or disciplinary records against any West Springfield town employee (not limited to the VSO) involving use of profanity, intimidation/retaliation against complainants, or refusal to perfrom mandatory duties[;] 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

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 2 January 13, 2026 [6] Any settlements, separation agreements, or monetary payments made by the Town related to the categories in items 4-5[;] [7] Any notices, audits, correspondence, or corrective-action plans from the Executive Office of Veterans’ Services (EOVS) or the Commonwealth regarding training deficiencies, professionalism violations, or reimbursement reductions for the West Springfield VSO office[;] [8] For any complaints or settlements identified in items 4-6, all records describing the resolution process and remedial actions the Town agreed to implement (e.g., training, policy changes, discriplinary measures)[;] [9] Security-camera footage (video and audio, if needed) of the Veterans’ Service Officer area on November 19, 2025, for the entire duration of [an identified individual’s] visit. On December 4, 2025, Mr. Brower provided clarification for his Item 9 request, stating: To clarify and complete the response, I now formally request the following immediately: [1] A complete list, diagram, or inventory of all security cameras (video and/or audio) in West Springfield Town Hall, including exact location (lobby, stairwells, hallways, elevator, second-floor corridors, Mayor’s office suite, City Manager’s office area, Veteran’s Services office, etc.) and whether each camera was recording on November 19, 19 2025[;] [2] If any additional cameras exist beyond the six files already produced and were recording on November 19, 2025 the full footage from the moment I entered the building until I left (approximately 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.), specifically including any footage that would show me attempting to lodge a written complaint at the Mayor’s office or with staff[;] [3] If any responsive footage from additional cameras has been withheld, a detailed privilege/redaction log as required by 950 CMR 32.08(2) identifying each withheld segment, the specific exemption claimed, and the basis for withholding[;] [4] Any internal policies, logs, or retention scheudles governing Town Hall security-camera recording, storage, and public-records disclosure Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a preivous appeal. See SPR25/3594 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 19, 2025). In my December 19th determination, I ordered the Town to clarify whether it possesses records responsive to Item 4, to clarify the applicability of Exemption (c) to records responsive to Item 5, and provide a timeframe for producing records

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 3 January 13, 2026 responsive to Item 8. The Town provided a response on December 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3848, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Town provided additional responses on December 29, and December 30, 2025. 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. See 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. See 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 29th Response In its December 29, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[r]egarding Request No. 4, the Town confirms that the only responsive record has already been produced and that no further responsive records exist.” Additionally, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold records responsive to Item 5. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In his December 29, 2025 appeal, Mr. Brower stated, “I appeal the Town[’s] intial response and supplemental response to my…public records request, specifically Items 5 and 9. The Town has fialed to adequately address these items and has ignored critical clarifications I provided…The supplemental response entirely ignores Item 9…The Town has not acknowledged or responsed to this clarification…The request was made one day after the incident—well within standard retention periods…The Town claims an insurmountable burden [for Item 5] without attempting a search or offering narrowing options…” In a further December 29, 2025 response, the Town stated the following “with respect to the December 4 supplemental request [about Item 9]”:

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 4 January 13, 2026 [1] [Item 1] According to our IT Department, no records exist that are responsive to this request[;] [2] [Item 2] The original Google Drive folder has been supplemented with the front door camera footage[;] [3] [Item 3] No responsive footage has been withheld[;] [4] [Item 4] According to our IT Department, no records exist that are responsive to this request. In an December 30, 2025 email to this office, Mr. Brower stated, “I wish to proceed with the appeal regarding both Item 5 and Item 9 (including clarifications/follow ups). The Town’s December 29, 2025 response…does not resolve my objections…Item 9: the response claims ‘no records exist’ for camera inventory/retention policies and adds only irrelevant front door footage. No relevant footage from the Veterans’ Services area or adjacent spaces was produced, no proof of adequate search provided, no explanantion for absence/overwriting, and no exemption log…Item 5: No new production or resolution was provided.” In a December 30, 2025 response to Mr. Brower and this office, the Town stated, “[t]he Town has conducted a reasonable search and has provided you will all records responsive to your public records requests that exist and are in the Town’s possession, custody, or control. No additional responsive records exist.” Item 5 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

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 5 January 13, 2026 “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 interest 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). 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). When analyzing a privacy claim, there is 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. Under Exemption (c), the Town argues: At the outset, the Town must note that your request is not limited to a specific employee. The scope of this request potentially encompasses hundreds of

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 6 January 13, 2026 individual personnel files…In order to determine whether any responsive records exist, the Town would be required to conduct manual, page-by-page review of each file. Such a review would require hundreds of staff hours and would substantially interfere with the Town’s ability to carry out is essential functions. To the extent such records exist, they consist of internal complaints; supervisory and human resources investigatory materials; findings and recommendations; and disciplinary records, including counseling memoranda, written warnings, and other corrective action documents. These recods relate to specifically identifiable employees and are maintained exclusively for personnel management purposes. …The records at issue are created and used to evaluate employee conduct, determine whether discipline is warranted, and guide supervisory action. As such, they fall sqaurly within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield and may be withheld in their entirety under the first clause of Exemption (c). Even if analyzed under the second clause of Exemption (c), disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Allegations of workplace misconduct, whether substantiated or not, implicate reputational interests and would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. While the public has a general interest in the effective functioning of government, disclosure of individualized disciplinary and complaint records would not meaningfully advance that interest and would instead reveal intimate details of internal personnel matters. The Town has considered whether any portion of the responsive records may be segregated for disclosure. However, the records consist almost entirely of evaluative, investigative, and disciplinary content, and any factual material is inextricably interwined with exempt personnel information. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Town’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. It is unclear from the Town’s response which specific records the Town intends to withhold. Additionally, it is unclear how the records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee as contemplated in Wakefield. Further, it is unclear how all the records contain imtimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 7 January 13, 2026 individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain how the records can be withheld in their entirety. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). The Town must clarify these matters. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames Please be advised, in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. Brower and the Town to continue to communicate directly to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Brower may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable factors to enable the search to be processed. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the

Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. SPR25/3848 Page 8 January 13, 2026 request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Item 9 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Where the Town has stated that is does not possess additional records responsive to Item 9 of the request, and this office has no authority to compel the Town to create records, I will now consider this part of Mr. Brower’s appeal resolved. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Brower 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. Brower may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower