Jordan, Nat v. Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20260326)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 13, 2026 SPR26/0326 Kenneth Fredette Records Access Officer City of Fall River One Government Center Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Mr. Fredette: I have received the petition of Attorney Nat Jordan, of Committee for Public Counsel Services, appealing the response of the City of Fall River (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 12, 2026, Attorney Jordan requested: [1] Information relating to any complaints against [an identified] Fall River Parking Control Officer, including but not limited to the following: [a.] Date of complaint(s); [b.] Complaint(s) and case number(s); [c.] Nature of the charge(s) or complaint(s); [d.] Results of investigation(s) into [an identified individual]; [e.] Any written reports or witness interviews prepared as part of investigation(s) into [an identified individual]; and [f.] Complaint Disposition Date(s). On January 22, 2026, Attorney Jordan modified the request as follows: Thus, I request that you disclose any complaints made against [an identified individual], as noted in my initial request under subpoint [b], in addition to:  Communication(s) to agencies or individuals regarding complaints against [an identified individual];  Notice(s) of the initiation of internal investigations;  Notice(s) of the results of internal investigations;  and incident report(s) concerning complaints against [an identified individual]. 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

Kenneth Fredette SPR26/0326 Page 2 February 13, 2026 The City provided responses on January 14, 2026 and January 23, 2026, and assigned reference number R000661-011226 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Attorney Jordan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0326, 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 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 Attorney Jordan’s appeal petition, Attorney Jordan contends, “… I am not seeking ‘ordinary evaluations, performance assessments and disciplinary determinations.’ I am seeking the complaints themselves. … The complaints themselves are not personnel information, so they must be disclosed. …” The City’s January 14th and January 23rd Responses In its January 14, 2026 and January 23, 2026 responses, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. 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.

Kenneth Fredette SPR26/0326 Page 3 February 13, 2026 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Personnel Information 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. 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).

Kenneth Fredette SPR26/0326 Page 4 February 13, 2026 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 14th response, under Exemption (c), the City states: The requestor here seeks “personnel information” within the meaning of G.L. c. 4, § 7, 26(c). The requestor has particularized a specifically named individual and seeks records that would exist in a personnel file. … The records sought here pertain to one employee only and is absolutely exempt from disclosure under the plain language of the statute. For the reasons cited above and supported by relevant case law also cited, the City of Fall River hereby denies all six (6) numerated records requests pertaining to a specific City employee as exempt from disclosure…. In its January 23rd response to Attorney Jordan’s January 22nd modified request, the City asserts: The City of Fall River maintains the records you seek regarding a single specific employee are exempted from disclosure under G.L. c. 4, s. 7, (26)(c). Your case cite to Worcester Telegram & gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, is inappropriate here as the case limits itself to an analysis of disclosure when internal affairs reports of police officers are at issue. … Unlike in Worcester, the City asserts a claim that the materials are exempt under both categories of clause Twenty-six (c)…. The request for complaints filed are personnel records of a kind covered by Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Committee of Wakefield. … Accordingly, the City of Fall River denies your request for complaints made against [an identified individual], who is not a police officer, has not been the target of any internal affairs investigation, has not been disciplined by the Fall River Department of Streets and Traffic, and who should not be victimized by a fishing expedition for complaint records that have no relevance to the criminal charges facing your client. Based on the information provided in the City’s January 23rd 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 records fall within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful

Kenneth Fredette SPR26/0326 Page 5 February 13, 2026 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 requested records under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Jordan 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: Nat Jordan, Esq.