Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260734)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 13, 2026 SPR26/0734 Alesia Days, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Days: 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 29, 2025, Mr. Brower requested the following: [1] Every Chapter 115 work-search agreement, plan, or form that [an identified individual], ha[s] ever signed or acknowledged with the Springfield Department of Veterans’ Services, including but not limited to: [a] Any document specifying the required number of weekly or monthly job searches[;] [b] Any document referencing the MOSES report requirement[;] [c] Any document outlining penalties or consequences for noncompliance[;] [d] Any revisions or updated versions of the work-search plan presented to [an identified individual] in 2025[;] [2] Any internal notes, emails, or case-file entries showing when these agreements were provided to [an identified individual], when [an identified individual] signed them, and any explanation given by VSO staff about the requirements. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3815 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 12, 2026); SPR26/0136 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 29, 2026); and SPR26/0376 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 17, 2026). In my January 29th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims to withhold responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and encouraged Mr. 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

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0734 Page 2 March 13, 2026 Brower and the City to communicate directly to determine if there is another means affording Mr. Brower a greater right of access to the responsive records. In my February 17th determination, I found that once the City provided a further response, Mr. Brower could appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response to SPR26/0136 within ninety (90) days. The City responded on February 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0734, 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. The City’s February 25th Response In its February 25, 2026 response, the City continued to cite Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower argued, “[t]his willful non-compliance is consistent with the broader pattern I have documented in multiple SPR appeals (improper bundling, vague “portions” responses, repeated blanket Exemption (c) denials without specificity or segregation, false “could not contact you” closures, and repeated ignoring of Supervisor orders).” 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

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0734 Page 3 March 13, 2026 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. Under Exemption (c), the City stated: Your request for records related to Chapter 115 Veteran Benefits is being denied under M.G.L. ch.4, § 7 (26) (c)… as the release of any MOSES report, job search, and employment plans of a specifically named individual, even with redactions, result in the direct identification of safety net program/welfare recipient facing financial hardship. Chapter 115 Veteran Benefits is a public assistance program designed as a safety net for Veterans experiencing financial hardship. The identification of any recipient would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy as doing so would identify a specific individual experiencing financial hardship. Accordingly, your request is being denied… Again, identifying a Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit recipient would result in personal embarrassment of an individual of normal sensibilities as the program is

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0734 Page 4 March 13, 2026 safety net/welfare program designed to assist veterans experiencing financial hardship. The identities of individuals receiving these benefits are not known to be available elsewhere. The release of any record, even with redactions, would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as it would inherently identify a specific individual seeking welfare payment. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the City’s claims to withhold the responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the City must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the records, I will return them to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay.

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0734 Page 5 March 13, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower Justin P. Morin