Catanzariti, Linda v. North Attleborough, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260617)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 10, 2026 SPR26/0617 Patricia McNielly Town Clerk Town of North Attleborough 43 South Washington Street North Attleborough, MA 02760 Dear Ms. McNielly: I have received the petition of Linda Catanzariti appealing the response of the Town of North Attleborough (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 9, 2025, Ms. Catanzariti requested “the HR Director’s letter to the Town Manager concerning the harassment & bullying complaint against the North Attleboro Public School administration.” The Town initially responded on August 19, 2025 and October 17, 2025, assigning the request reference number PRR-25-107. Previous Appeals and In Camera Review This request was the subject of previous appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/2922 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 14, 2025) and SPR25/3220 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (November 14, 2025 and December 10, 2025). In my December 10th determination, I ordered the Town to review the responsive record, redact only where necessary, and provide the responsive record to Ms. Catanzariti. The Town responded on December 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Catanzariti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0617, 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

Patricia McNielly SPR26/0617 Page 2 March 10, 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. The Town’s December 24th Response In its December 24, 2025 response, the Town provided the responsive record, with redactions pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Catanzariti argued, “I received the document with almost all the information redacted… North Attleboro has not complied with the demands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has not acted in good faith by withholding and redacting a public document.” 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 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.

Patricia McNielly SPR26/0617 Page 3 March 10, 2026 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. Under Exemption (c), the Town stated: The record is redacted as it contains… [1] Personnel information… Specifically, the responsive documents contain information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” that “includes, at a minimum, employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” See Wakefield

Patricia McNielly SPR26/0617 Page 4 March 10, 2026 Teachers Ass’n v. School Committee, 431 Mass 792, 798 (2000). Allegations of harassment, particularly the ones made here, constitute information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, as it can reasonably lead to discipline or termination… The Town disagrees with SPR’s assessment that the letter does not constitute personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. [2] Materials/data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy… Here, the public interest does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of the invasion of privacy addressed below. The Town has communicated the findings of its investigation to you in a letter dated July 23, 2025 which did not find any violation of Town policies. Any further disclosures would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy with respect to other employees that were alleged and found not to have engaged in wrongdoing. As to the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the application of this exemption requires an evaluation of the following factors: (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… Here, the PETA balancing test results in a finding that disclosing these categories of information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy… As to the first element, the disclosure of the requested information would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, who would find that dissemination of information relating to complaints of harassment would certainly result in embarrassment for those alleged to have engaged of such behavior in having such sensitive information about them revealed publicly. It also would impact the accused’s reputation to release unsubstantiated allegations about them, which could be then shared publicly with the perspective that they did engage in wrongdoing… As to the second element, the information is of a highly personal nature, in that it contains references to matters that could potentially lead to stigma (unsubstantiated allegations of harassment, being accused of harassment) which by law constitutes highly personal information. These matters clearly affect one’s reputation… As to the third element, the same information is available by way of emails that you provided to the Town as part of the investigation and by way of the Town’s July 23, 2025 letter to you on the matter which addressed the investigation’s conclusion. The Town has not publicly released any other information about this matter and does not intend to release this document.

Patricia McNielly SPR26/0617 Page 5 March 10, 2026 Based on the Town’s response, in conjunction with the previous in camera review of the responsive record, where the redactions to the responsive record constitute personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, I find the Town may permissibly withhold the redacted information under Exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .” Id. at 6. Where the Town has met its burden to withhold the redacted information under the personnel clause of Exemption (c), I decline to opine on the applicability of the privacy clause of Exemption (c) to the responsive record. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Catanzariti 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 of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Linda Catanzariti