Lennon, Anastasia v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260090)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0900 Romina Moniz Central Records Access Officer City Solicitor’s Office City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Moniz: I have received the petition of Anastasia E. Lennon, of the New Bedford Light, appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 18, 2025, Ms. Lennon requested the following: [1] [A]ll internal affairs summary complaint entries on dispatcher [a named individual]. These records include the violation(s) and investigative conclusion/findings. The date range of this portion of the request is from the start of [the individual’s] employment with NBPD to Sept. 18, 2025. [2] All emails (and email attachments) to/from: - Current and former PSU/Internal Affairs staff: [a list of seven individuals] that contain the following keywords (not case sensitive), in the subject line and/or body of the email: [a named individual] The date range of this portion of the request is from Jan. 1, 2023 to Sept. 18, 2025. Please exclude from processed/provided records all department-wide announcements/messages, press releases and news clips. The City responded on October 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Lennon petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0090, 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

Romina Moniz SPR26/0090 Page 2 January 27, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Lennon argues the following: I am requesting records on an employee of the New Bedford Police Department. She is not a janitor or an accountant. She is a dispatcher who takes calls regarding police matters and works directly with law enforcement officers. She was investigated by law enforcement officers in the department’s internal affairs unit. It is my understanding one of the allegations investigated by NBPD regarded her sharing information she obtained in her professional duties with an outside party that may have violated department policy. For my initial request (the one I am appealing), I asked for summary complaint entries for internal affairs investigations on the dispatcher so I could effectively narrow my request and then file a public records request for that full investigative report. The city is declining to release the summary complaint files, which . . . include a basic narrative, as well as the investigative findings and alleged violations[.] Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand that Ms. Lennon objects only to the City’s response concerning Item 1 of her request, for “internal affairs summary complaint entries.”

Romina Moniz SPR26/0090 Page 3 January 27, 2026 The City’s October 21st Response In its October 21, 2025 response, the City provides multiple emails in redacted form responsive to Item 1 of the request, and cites Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records Law for redacting the emails. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (o). Additionally, the City cites Exemption (c) for withholding records responsive to Item 1 of the request. 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 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.

Romina Moniz SPR26/0090 Page 4 January 27, 2026 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 October 21st response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: The City is withholding five internal affairs summary complaints regarding the named dispatcher, who is a civilian employee, and 17 emails pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Under exemption (c), “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee,’” are exempt from public disclosure. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee, 431 Mass. 792, 731 N.E.2d 63 (2000). Such records include employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee. See, e.g., Wakefield Teachers Association. The specifically named employee is a civilian employee (a dispatcher) and the withheld records consist of information useful in making employment decisions regarding the employee and as such are personnel records falling within the scope of exemption (c) and are therefore withheld. To the extent applicable, the above withholdings are also applied pursuant to Exemption (c)’s privacy clause as the withheld records consist of private information belonging to a specifically named individual the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017), it was clarified that a records access officer must take into account three factors when determining whether a privacy interest is at stake:

Romina Moniz SPR26/0090 Page 5 January 27, 2026 (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. If a privacy interest is found, exemption (c) requires the records access officer to apply a balancing test: “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.” Id. at 291-92. Based on the information provided in the City’s October 21st response, where the City has explained that the subject of the records was not a law enforcement officer, I find that the City has demonstrated that the responsive records are not “related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” Further, the City has met its burden to demonstrate that the withheld internal affairs summary complaints 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 City has met its burden to withhold the internal affairs summary complaints under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Lennon 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: Anastasia E. Lennon