Brower, William v. West Springfield, Town of (SPR 20260289)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0289 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 mandatory 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 perform 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 SPR26/0289 Page 2 February 12, 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, disciplinary 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 schedules governing Town Hall security-camera recording, storage, and public-records disclosure[.] Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3594 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 19, 2025) and SPR25/3848 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 13, 2026). In my January 13th determination, I ordered the Town to clarify the applicability of Exemption (c) to records responsive to Item 5. The Town provided a response on

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0289 Page 3 February 12, 2026 January 28, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0289, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Town provided an additional response on February 6, 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. 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. Current Appeal In his January 28, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Brower objected to the Town’s response, stating, “[t]he Town has failed to comply with your order and has engaged in evasive, unprofessional, and bad-faith conduct that undermines the Public Records Law and the transparency owed to citizens and taxpayers.” The Town’s January 28th and February 6th Responses In its January 28, 2026 response, the Town identified two (2) responsive records it was withholding under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[y]our request was not limited by employee, department, or time period. To the extent you are seeking a broader search of all Town personnel files over multiple years, the Town requests that you reasonably narrow the scope of your request so that a meaningful search can be conducted.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In its February 6, 2026 response, the Town reiterated that the two (2) identified responsive records are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Additionally, the Town stated, “[t]he Town has also advised that Item 5 is not reasonably limited…As previously explained, searching the paper personnel files of hundreds of employees

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0289 Page 4 February 12, 2026 is not reasonable or tenable.” 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 “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. Under Exemption (c), the Town states, “the Town has identified by memory two responsive records within the scope of Item 5: (1) a disciplinary action issued to a Town employee, and (2) a related last chance agreement with the same employee. The Town maintains that both records constitute exempt personnel records under G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).” Where the disciplinary action and last chance agreement constitute one of the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0289 Page 5 February 12, 2026 decisions regarding an employee, I find the Town may permissibly withhold the two identified records 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.”). 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. Modification of Broad Request In the Town’s January 28th response, the Town, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii), suggested a modification of the scope of Mr. Brower’s request. Additionally, in the Town’s February 6th response, the Town stated, “Item 5 is not reasonably limited by employee, department, or time period, and [the Town] has requested that the scope be narrowed. Mr.

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0289 Page 6 February 12, 2026 Brower has declined to do so…” Whereas the Town has offered reasonable modifications of the scope of Mr. Brower’s November 20th request, I find the Town has met its burden of responding to Mr. Brower’s request. 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 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). Conclusion Accordingly, if outstanding issues remain after Mr. Brower and the Town communicate further as described above, Mr. Brower may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower