Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260136)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 29, 2026 SPR26/0136 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 29, 2025, Mr. Brower requested the following: [1] Every Chapter 115 work-search agreement, plan, or form that [an identified individual], ha[s] ever signed or acknowledged with the Springfield Department of Veterans’ Services, including but not limited to: [a] Any document specifying the required number of weekly or monthly job searches[;] [b] Any document referencing the MOSES report requirement[;] [c] Any document outlining penalties or consequences for non- compliance[;] [d] Any revisions or updated versions of the work-search plan presented to [an identified individual] in 2025[;] [2] Any internal notes, emails, or case-file entries showing when these agreements were provided to [an identified individual], when [an identified individual] signed them, and any explanation given by VSO staff about the requirements. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3815 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 12, 2026). In my January 12th determination, I ordered the City to clarify the applicability of Exemption (c) to the responsive records. The City responded on January 13, 2026. Unsatisfied by the response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0136, 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0136 Page 2 January 29, 2026 Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Brower’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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. 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 City’s January 13th Response In its January 13, 2026 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Additionally, the City stated, “[t]he requester has been notified that Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit records are being denied as a public records and that the City’s Veteran Services Department and/or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Veteran Services should be contacted for information regarding payments or their case…” Current Appeal In his January 13, 2026 petition to this office, Mr. Brower objected to the City withholding responsive records under Exemption (c) and stated, “[t]his willful noncompliance obstructs access to my own veteran benefit records…”

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0136 Page 3 January 29, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or date 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). 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. In its January 13th response, under Exemption (c), the City argued, “[t]he release of any record as public record request, even with redactions, could specifically identify a government benefit recipient. The release of information related to a government benefit recipient would result in an unwarranted invasion of a specific individual’s privacy. The City feels that the release of this information would outweigh the need for public disclosure...”

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0136 Page 4 January 29, 2026 Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions 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 City must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold, and explain with specificity how any exemptions apply to withhold the records. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Additionally, the City has not demonstrated that the requested “Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit records,” in their entirety, are intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether this information is available from other sources. Further, it is uncertain why the records must 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 City must clarify these matters. Greater Right of Access to the Records Based on the information provided in Mr. Brower’s appeal petition and the City’s response, it is unclear whether Mr. Brower may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. This office encourages Mr. Brower and the City to communicate directly to determine if there is another means affording Mr. Brower a greater right of access to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Brower with a response to his 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.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0136 Page 5 January 29, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower Justin Morin