DeMarco, Celeste v. Wellesley, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260552)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 2, 2026 SPR26/0552 K.C. Kato Records Access Officer Town of Wellesley 525 Washington Street, First Floor Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Ms. Kato: I have received the petition of Celeste DeMarco appealing the response of the Town of Wellesley (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 13, 2026, Ms. DeMarco requested: All emails, correspondence, memoranda, and similar written communications that were either sent by, or received by, [five identified individuals] where the other party to the communication was [two identified individuals] for the time period December 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017. On January 29, 2026, Ms. DeMarco modified her request to exclude one email and to “… narrow the date range from February 1, 2017-May 1, 2017.” The Town responded on January 28, 2026, January 29, 2026, January 30, 2026, February 2, 2026, and February 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Ms. DeMarco petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0552, 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

K.C. Kato SPR26/0552 Page 2 March 2, 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. DeMarco contends: … there is no lawful basis to redact the substantive content of the email itself. Once identifying information has been removed, the remaining text does not reveal “intimate details of a highly personal nature” within the meaning of Exemption (c). The email concerns communications involving matters connected to public school administration and interactions relating to a public official. … Redacting substantive passages, rather than narrowly redacting identifying information, exceeds the limited scope of the privacy exemption. Upon review of her appeal petition, it appears Ms. DeMarco is not objecting to the redactions made under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Town’s Responses On January 29, 2026, the Town stated, “we have no responsive records to or from any member, officer, employee, or representative of the Wellesley Police Department.” On January 30, 2026, the Town stated, “[b]ased on the revised timeframe, and excluding the email from [an identified individual] regarding HHU, there are 55 total emails that may be responsive to this request[,]” and provided a fee estimate. On February 2, 2026, the Town received payment of the fee. On February 13, 2026, the Town provided some records responsive to Ms. DeMarco’s request and stated that it redacted certain records pursuant to Exemption (a) and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a); G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). The Town cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D and 34E as the bases for withholding the requested records.

K.C. Kato SPR26/0552 Page 3 March 2, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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 – Medical Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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

K.C. Kato SPR26/0552 Page 4 March 2, 2026 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 response, the Town states: …some of the records contain information protected by Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law. … The requested records contain some information that could result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy to an individual of normal sensibilities if released. This includes medical and legal information. This information is personal in nature and likely not available from other sources. Additionally, personal email addresses have been removed, as individuals may not want this information released to the public. The redacted information also would not shed light on whether government officials are carrying out their duties in a law- abiding and efficient manner. Therefore, public interest in disclosing this information does not outweigh these individual’s privacy interests. Based on the Town’s February 13th response, to the extent that the Town has redacted medical information of a specifically named individual, the Town may properly redact such information under the first clause of Exemption (c). However, it is unclear how the remaining redacted portions of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c). Particularly, it is unclear how the remaining redacted portions, including legal information, constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Additionally, the Town must provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested records outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. 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 v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. DeMarco 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. Ms. DeMarco may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

K.C. Kato SPR26/0552 Page 5 March 2, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Celeste DeMarco