Reese, Geoffrey v. Department of Correction (SPR 20260113)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0113 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Department of Correction 50 Maple Street, Suite 3 Milford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Geoffrey Reese appealing the response of the Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 5, 2026, Mr. Reese requested the following: [1] 103 DOC 522, Professional Standard Unit. [2] Copy of an investigation involving [a named individual] and [an identified staff member]. The Department responded on December 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Reese petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0113, 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 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 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 Silvia SPR26/0113 Page 2 January 27, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Reese contends that he “was provided overly redacted records responsive to his request.” The Department’s December 11th Response In its December 11, 2025 response, the Department provides records responsive to Item 1 of the response, and provides a report responsive to Item 2 of the request in redacted form. The Department cites Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the responsive report. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities.

Kate Silvia SPR26/0113 Page 3 January 27, 2026 Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) The current definition of CORI is as follows: “Criminal offender record information,” records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, previous hearings conducted pursuant to section 58A of chapter 276 where the defendant was detained prior to trial or released with conditions under subsection (2) of section 58A of chapter 276, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release. Such information shall be restricted to information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment. Criminal offender record information shall not include evaluative information, statistical and analytical reports and files in which individuals are not directly or indirectly identifiable, or intelligence information. Criminal offender record information shall be limited to information concerning persons who have attained the age of 18 and shall not include any information concerning criminal offenses or acts of delinquency committed by any person before he attained the age of 18; provided, however, that if a person under the age of 18 was adjudicated as an adult in superior court or adjudicated as an adult after transfer of a case from a juvenile session to another trial court department, information relating to such criminal offense shall be criminal offender record information. Criminal offender record information shall not include information concerning any offenses which are not punishable by incarceration. G. L. c. 6, § 167. In its December 11th response, under Exemption (a) and CORI, the Department argues the following: The enclosed responsive record has been redacted to remove any criminal offender record information (CORI) of identifiable inmates under G.L. c. 6, § 167. G.L. c. G, § 167, defines CORI as “records and data in any communicable form compiled by a Massachusetts criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to ... incarceration, rehabilitation, or release.” Access to CORI information is strictly controlled. 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

Kate Silvia SPR26/0113 Page 4 January 27, 2026 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. In its response, under Exemption (c), the Department argues the following: As the Appeals Court found, employees have the right to object to the release of personnel records, including disciplinary records, pursuant to G.L. c. 6GA, Section 2. John Doe, et al. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 428 (1988). Release of investigative findings and conclusions, even if an employee is ultimately exonerated, or where a finding is un-sustained, could nevertheless lead to damage to the employee’s reputation, which would have a direct impact on the employee, if and when the employee were to pursue employment elsewhere. The employee could still be faced with the possibility that some individuals may harbor a suspicion that the investigative finding resulted from a technicality due to insufficiency of the evidence, for example, and wrongly assume that the employee had actually engaged in some form of misconduct. Release of the findings and conclusions of these investigations could have a detrimental effect on reputations not only for employment purposes but also within the perception of the community at large. Based on the information provided in the Department’s December 11th response, where the subject of the record was a physical therapist and not a law enforcement officer, I find that

Kate Silvia SPR26/0113 Page 5 January 27, 2026 the Department has demonstrated that the responsive records are not “related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.” Further, the Department has met its burden to demonstrate that the redacted records falls 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 Department has met its burden to redact the responsive report under Exemption (c). Where the Department has met its burden to redact the responsive report under Exemption (c), I find it unnecessary to address the Department’s claims for redacting the record under Exemption (a) and CORI. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Reese 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: Geoffrey Reese