Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260760)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 18, 2026 SPR26/0760 Michael Manning Records Access Officer Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: I have received the petition of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 28, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “complaints regarding [an identified individual] received during 2025.” The City provided responses on December 28, 2025 and March 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0760, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided a supplemental response on March 13, 2026. 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. 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0760 Page 2 March 18, 2026 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 28th and March 3rd Responses In its December 28, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of Mr. Webb’s request, assigning it reference number W081977-122825. In its March 2, 2026 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold two (2) responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Current Appeal In its March 3, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Webb argued, “[o]n March 3rd, 2026, the city confirmed it is in possession of responsive records, citing exemption C, however complaints are not personnel records…” 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 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. 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0760 Page 3 March 18, 2026 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 Association, 431 Mass. at 798. In its March 3rd response, under Exemption (c), the City argues, “[i]t is my understanding that there are two (2) responsive records to this request. However, the City will withhold these records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The City asserts that the requested records constitute personnel information that is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee as defined by the court in Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000)…” In its March 13th response, under Exemption (c), the City argues the following: As an initial matter, please note that it is my understanding the City identified the two responsive records during a search of the employee in questions personnel file. However, in considering that the City’s classification of materials as personnel information is not dispositive in considering a record to be completed under the first clause of Exception (c). I wish to provide further information the requested records are ones that are explicitly useful in making employment decisions. Feedback from supervisors, colleagues, residents, and other community stakeholders would be the exact type of information that would [be] taken into consideration during any evaluation of an employee’s performance in their current role and therefore are useful in making employment decisions. Like the records at issue in Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, the responsive records in this case seek complaints regarding one employee, therefore, the responsive records cannot be sufficiently redacted. Finally like the records sought in Wakefield, forced public disclosure of complaints sought by this request, regardless of their veracity, may have a decidedly negative effect making employment decisions. As noted in my initial response, it continues to be the City’s position that the requested records, in their entirety, constitute personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee and may be permissibly withheld under the first clause of Exemption (c). In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claims made by the City to withhold the responsive records in their entirety, the City must provide this office with a copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the City’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. 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.

Michael Manning SPR26/0760 Page 4 March 18, 2026 This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. 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 or 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 an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb