Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260738)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0738 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 five requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Request 1 On December 27, 2025, Mr. Brower requested: [1] The number of times any Springfield VSO has offered or provided the emergency homeless fund (or any similar emergency housing assistance under Chapter 115 or related programs) to me… since January 1, 2021, including dates, times, and any related communications or notes. [2] All records documenting instances where [an identified individual] or VSO staff were aware that I… was actively homeless (including emails, notes, case files, communications, or any other proof showing knowledge of my homelessness, such as references to my housing status, emergency needs, or related discussions) since January 1, 2021, including the number of such instances and a detailed log of how and when this awareness was documented or acted upon (or not). [3] The number of times [an identified individual] or any Springfield VSO staff have checked on my welfare (e.g., inquiries about my health, housing stability, or well-being as a veteran in crisis) since January 1, 2021, including dates, times, and any related communications or notes. 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. SPR26/0738 Page 2 March 16, 2026 [4] All regulations, policies, guidelines, or procedures governing the emergency homeless fund (or any similar emergency housing assistance under Chapter 115 or related programs), including but not limited to: - Criteria for eligibility and distribution. - How the fund should be offered or provided to veterans in crisis. - Any requirements for documentation or verification. - Processes for approval, denial, or tracking of offers. Request 2 On December 28, 2025, Mr. Brower requested: [1] A full compilation of every mention of service animals, emotional support animals, or pets associated with me… in any VSO records (including emails, notes, case files, communications, or discussions) since January 1, 2021. [2] All records documenting discussions of my discrimination claims (any other legal discrimination determinations, if discussed), internal notes or communications with EOVS, Soldier On, Billingual Veteran center or any hotels regarding these claims or my service animal, since November 1, 2025. [3] A full history of all ADA grievances, including discrimination claims involving service animals (both my personal records and any general VSO records on such grievances), since January 1, 2021. [4] All documentation of mentions of my service animal discrimination, including VSO notes on any phone calls, voice discussions, or verbal communications (with summaries, logs, or recordings if available) since January 1, 2021. [5] All factual basis and evidence that [an identified individual] (or VSO staff) used to conclude that no discrimination occurred (as he argued and stated on a phone call with myself) including records showing how they reached that conclusion when arguing against my claims. [6] For each item in items 1-5: - All records documenting the receipt, review, assignment, internal discussions, processing, status updates, or determinations related to that specific item. - A detailed log explaining what actions (if any) were taken, including why no action was taken if applicable, and any rationale for the decision (e.g., for phone calls or verbal discussions starting investigations).

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0738 Page 3 March 16, 2026 Request 3 On December 28, 2025, Mr. Brower requested: [1] A full compilation of all communications, notes, or case-file entries related to [an identified individual] requesting the Springfield police to place a call to me in behalf of the Springfield VSO (witness intimidation concern) since January 1, 2021. [2] All records documenting the premise or reasons for the police call, including any internal discussions, justifications, or communications with Springfield Police about it. [3] For each item in items 1 and 2: - All records documenting the receipt, review, assignment, internal discussions, processing, status updates, or determinations related to that specific item. - A detailed log explaining what actions (if any) were taken, including why no action was taken if applicable, and any rationale for the decision. Request 4 On December 28, 2025, Mr. Brower requested: [1] A full compilation of every email, correspondence, or submission sent by me… requesting retention of my original ability to contact any VSO staff or offices (by phone, in-person, or other methods) since January 1, 2021, especially ones noting facts such as no determination was made, no rules were broken, or no issues occurred with other VSOs. [2] All summaries, notes, logs, or records of phone calls or verbal communications initiated by me requesting the same retention of contact access since January 1, 2021. [3] A detailed timeline of my access to VSO services, including: - Periods when access was full and open (e.g., phone, in-person, or other methods). - Periods when access was restricted or cut off, with dates, times, and reasons for the restriction. - The date and time [an identified individual] acknowledged any professional or official complaint created by [an identified individual] against himself. - All subsequent instances where I pleaded for restored access, including dates, times, reasons provided in my pleas, and any related communications.

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0738 Page 4 March 16, 2026 [4] For each item in items 1, 2, and 3: - All records documenting the receipt, routing, review, assignment, internal discussions (including emails, memos, notes, or correspondence between staff), processing, status updates, or determinations related to that specific item. - A detailed, itemized log explaining what actions (if any) were taken to substantiate my desires for restored access, why no action was taken if applicable, the legal basis for any actions taken against my desires, and the dates/times those actions were taken. Request 5 On December 29, 2025, Mr. Brower requested: [1] All records documenting the receipt, review, or acknowledgment of my requests for emergency financial assistance or relief (including but not limited to temporary shelter/housing payments under Chapter 115, such as hotel/motel lodging), including dates, times, and methods of receipt (e.g., emails, phone calls, notes). [2] All communications, notes, emails, logs, or case-file entries related to my emergency assistance requests, including any discussions of contacting third parties (e.g., HUD-VASH case managers or other agencies) for coordination or verification. [3] A detailed log of all actions taken (or not taken) by [an identified individual] or VSO staff in response to my emergency assistance requests, including: - Dates and descriptions of any approvals, denials, delays, referrals, or outreach attempts. - Reasons for any delays, non-actions, or requirements for third-party contact. - Any internal discussions or rationale for conditioning assistance on authorization to contact other agencies. [4] All records of welfare checks, inquiries about my well-being, or immediate needs since November 1, 2025. The City assigned reference number 25-4745 to encompass all five of the requests and provided a response on January 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0738, 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

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0738 Page 5 March 16, 2026 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 January 13th Response In its January 13, 2026 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. In addition, the City stated: The City requires additional information to respond to your request for police records. If you wish to search police reports involving [an identified individual] between 1/1/2021, please provide the individual’s date of birth and the type of report you seek (arrest report, call log, police incident report, etc). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower argued: [T]he City improperly bundled…unrelated requests into a single portal entry. On January 13, 2026, they issued a blanket Exemption (c) denial on all Chapter 115- related records. Then, on January 29, 2026, they closed the entire bundle… The City never made any attempt to contact me. This is part of the same pattern of obstruction documented in my other SPR appeals (improper bundling, blanket (c) denials on my own records, false closures, ignored orders, etc.). 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.

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0738 Page 6 March 16, 2026 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: The City must deny your request for records associated with Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit records and police records made by a specifically named complainant, as they are exempt from disclosure under M.G.L. ch.4, § 7 (26) (c). Under the Public Records Law, a person who is the subject of the record is not granted any greater access right than any other person. Therefore, regardless of whether the requester is seeking records pertaining to themselves, their identity does not come into play when determining whether they are entitled to a record. The release of any records related to a specifically named individual would result in the direct identification of a government benefit recipient. The release of this information would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy, as this information is not publicly available. Furthermore, the Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit Program is designed for low-income veterans and their families. The release of any record as a public record request, even with redactions, could specifically identify a government benefit recipient. The release of information

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0738 Page 7 March 16, 2026 related to a government benefit recipient would result in an unwarranted invasion of a specific individual's privacy. The City feels that the release of this information would outweigh the need for public disclosure. Therefore, any record related to Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit would be withheld from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. ch.4, § 7 (26) (c) of the Public Records Law… Furthermore, your request for police complaints made by a specifically named individual must be denied as the City is unable to provide records on the basis of who made a complaint as this would directly identify a witness, complainant, or victim. Based on the City’s response, although portions of the responsive records may fall under the privacy clause of Exemption (c), it is unclear how the City may withhold the responsive records in their entirety. The City has not sufficiently demonstrated how all of the responsive records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature that would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Although the City confirmed that the information is not publicly available, the City must also provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. Id. It should also 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). Additionally, the City did not identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record or portion of a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). The City must clarify these matters. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). 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

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0738 Page 8 March 16, 2026 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 (January 23, 2019). In its January 13, 2026 response, the City additionally stated it is seeking further clarification regarding the portions of Mr. Brower’s requests that seek police records. Please be advised that it is valid for the custodian of records to 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Consequently, Mr. Brower is encouraged to provide the City with the needed clarification regarding the records he seeks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public records sought). 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