Hannemann, Margaret v. Steamship Authority (SPR 20260181)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0181 Sean F. Driscoll Communications Director Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, MA 02540 Dear Mr. Driscoll: I have received the petition of Margaret Hannemann appealing the response of the Steamship Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 14, 2025, Ms. Hannemann requested “…communication between [an identified individual] and [an identified individual] in the months of September, October and November 2019, as far as the allowable free hours will take.” Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/3560 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 17, 2025) and SPR25/3736 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 2, 2026). In my January 2nd determination, I ordered the Authority to clarify how Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law applies to the redacted information. The Authority responded on January 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Authority’s response, Ms. Hannemann petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0181, 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). 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

Sean F. Driscoll SPR26/0181 Page 2 February 3, 2026 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. Hannemann contends, “I believe that the content of the letter should be disclosed as it would seem to have information concerning issues with the project work of the Steamship Authority. I understand if a name is redacted but I take issue with the whole matter being redacted.” The Authority’s January 16th Response In its January 16, 2026 response, the Authority cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law as the reason for the redactions. 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

Sean F. Driscoll SPR26/0181 Page 3 February 3, 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 January 16th response, the Authority asserts: The letter contains employee work evaluations. …

Sean F. Driscoll SPR26/0181 Page 4 February 3, 2026 The nature or character of the documents, rather than the documents’ label, are the crux of this analysis. The email in question contains an evaluation of an individual’s work, and said evaluation pertains to a particular employee of the Authority. Therefore, withholding the email pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c) is in order. The letter contains information that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities and is information that cannot be found from other sources. … The Supervisor cites factors to consider in this analysis, of which I am relying on two: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, and (2) whether the same information is available from other sources. The contents of the email in question concern a personal evaluation of a specifically named employee’s work. Any individual of normal sensibilities would be embarrassed to have such personal evaluations of their employment and the quality of their work released publicly, regardless of the tone, tenor, or content of the evaluation. Furthermore, this information is not available from any other source. Given those factors, I find that the public interest in releasing this information does not outweigh the public interest in receiving this information and withholding the information is in order. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claims made by the Authority to redact the responsive record, the Authority must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to the Authority’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c).

Sean F. Driscoll SPR26/0181 Page 5 February 3, 2026 This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Margaret Hannemann