Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260362)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0362 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 12, 2025, Mr. Brower requested “the name of the employee who told [the City] to transfer me anyways to Pittsfield, and their position[.]” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3593 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2025). In my December 16th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. Brower with a response to his request. The City responded twice on December 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0362, 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 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. SPR26/0362 Page 2 February 12, 2026 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. The City’s December 19th Responses In its first December 19, 2025 response, the City stated: At this time, it is not known what the requester seeks. If Mr. Brower can clarify what public records this specific appeal relates to, I will be able to respond further. The City currently has 4 open (3 currently paused for clarification and/or payment) and 2 closed requests from Mr. Brower… We have advised him to contact the Veteran Services Division for information related to any Chapter 115 Veteran Benefits, as information related to this is exempt under M.G.L. ch. 4, § 7 (26) (c), as responding to any information would directly identify a public assistance recipient. Mr. Brower should contact the Executive Office of Veteran Services for questions regarding any Chapter 115 Benefits or his local Veteran Services Office in the town where he lives. For records possessed by the City related to any current or previous Chapter 115 Benefits, Mr. Brower can visit the office with photographic identification to receive that information. Benefit applications and eligibility questions would be best directed to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Veteran Services. Subsequently on December 19, 2025, Mr. Brower clarified that “[t]he request seeks only the name and position of a public employee, not personal benefits information.” The City responded further on the same day as follows: Please refer to the City’s response to your request in Public Record Request No. 25-4367 on 12/15/2025… You were advised that anyone who is a Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit recipient should contact the City’s Veteran Services Department for questions regarding their case… Your request for records has been denied under M.G.L. ch. 4, § 7(26)(c) as the release of any record, even with redaction, would result in the direct identification of a possible benefit recipient. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower alleged that the City “feigned ignorance” of his clarification. Additionally, Mr. Brower argued against the applicability of Exemption (c), stating that the City’s response “constitutes willful noncompliance, bad faith, and obstruction[.]”

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0362 Page 3 February 12, 2026 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). 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. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0362 Page 4 February 12, 2026 (January 23, 2019). Regarding the language of Mr. Brower’s request, and based on the clarifying information he provided to the City on December 19, 2026, it appears that Mr. Brower has provided specific descriptions of the records he is seeking. Based on the City’s responses, it is unclear whether any responsive records exist. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, to the extent the City is withholding records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, it must explain with specificity how Exemption (c) applies to the withheld records. See 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”). It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The City must clarify these matters. This office encourages Mr. Brower and the City to continue communicating to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Brower with a response to the 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. Mr. Brower may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower Justin P. Morin