Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260815)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0815 Alesia H. 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 two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Request 1 On January 27, 2026, “for the period from January 1, 2025, to the present (or the date of [the City’s] response, if later),” Mr. Brower requested the following records: [1] All Communications Involving [an identified individual]:  All emails, memos, notes, letters, text messages, voicemail transcripts, or other correspondence (internal or external) mentioning or involving [an identified individual], including but not limited to communications with [two identified individuals] or any other VSO staff. This includes any records of phone calls, meetings, or interactions (e.g., call logs, appointment notes). [2] Inquiries Regarding Safety, Well-Being, and Housing:  All records showing any outreach, inquiries, or checks on [an identified individual’s] safety, well-being, housing status, or health during the period, including during the severe winter storm warning from January 25- 26, 2026. 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 H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0815 Page 2 March 19, 2026  A summary or count of how many contacts (if any) included such inquiries, with dates and details (e.g., “On [date], VSO staff contacted [an identified individual] to check on housing during storm”)… [3] Related Logs and Documentation:  All outgoing mail logs or delivery records related to [an identified individual], including any attempts to send termination paperwork or notices (e.g., postmarks, tracking numbers, or returned mail notations).  Any internal policies or guidelines on outreach to unhoused veterans during severe weather events, including any records of implementation for [an identified individual]. Request 2 Also on January 27, 2026, Mr. Brower made the following request: Please provide the following records for [two identified individuals] from January 1, 2020, to the present (or the date of your response, whichever is later)… [1] Training and Certification Records A list (or copies of certificates/attendance records) showing all training, workshops, courses, seminars, webinars, or certifications completed by each employee in the following subject areas:  Chapter 115 administration, including eligibility determination, benefit processing, appeals, grievance procedures, and compliance obligations.  Housing assistance programs, emergency shelter referrals, transitional housing support, and services for unhoused veterans.  Anti-discrimination laws and obligations, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II and Title III, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and M.G.L. c. 151B.  Reasonable accommodations for disabilities, including service and assistance animals (ADA/FHA guidelines, verification of task-trained mobility animals, prohibition on pet fees/deposits/breed restrictions, and related policies).  Retaliation prevention and complainant protection (safeguards against adverse actions following protected activity, such as discrimination complaints or cease-and-desist communications).  First Amendment and constitutional rights in public accommodations and government interactions (public recording in public-facing offices, free speech rights, and related policies).  Handling of appeals, grievances, and administrative disputes involving veterans’ benefits.

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0815 Page 3 March 19, 2026  Any VA-specific or EOVS-mandated training or certifications relevant to the above topics (e.g., VA accreditation updates, veterans’ rights compliance modules). [2] Training and Certification Records Related to Records Access and Public Records Law Compliance Dates, titles/topics, providers, and completion status of all training, workshops, courses, seminars, webinars, or certifications completed by each employee ([two identified individuals]) in the following subject areas:  Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 66, §10), including obligations for timely response, exemptions, fee waiver considerations, segregation of exempt material, and appeals to the Supervisor of Records.  Records access procedures specific to veterans’ services and Chapter 115 beneficiary files, including any requirements for prompt disclosure of a veteran’s own records, greater direct access for beneficiaries, and coordination with the Executive Office of Veterans’ Services (EOVS) guidelines.  Any City of Springfield-specific training on public records requests, records retention policies, or compliance with the City’s Records Access Officer procedures.  Any combined or cross-training addressing the intersection of veterans’ benefits records (Chapter 115 files) and general public records obligations (e.g., when VSO-held documents are subject to M.G.L. c. 66 requests vs. internal veteran privacy considerations). [3] Compliance and Policy Records Copies of any written policies, guidelines, memoranda, or standard operating procedures (current and in effect during the requested period) of the VSO related to:  Service and assistance animal accommodations in VSO interactions, referrals, or partner agency communications.  Processing and responding to discrimination or retaliation complaints from veterans.  Outreach, follow-up, or welfare checks for unhoused veterans during severe weather events (e.g., winter storm warnings, blizzards, extreme cold).  Public recording or filming in VSO offices or public-facing areas.  Any internal audits, compliance reviews, or reports (including any Supervisor of Records determinations or appeals involving training or policy compliance) concerning the VSO office or the above employees.

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0815 Page 4 March 19, 2026 The City assigned reference number 26-470 to encompass both requests and provided a response on February 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0815, 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 cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. In addition, the City stated: The Public Records Division has been advised that there are no records that are responsive to your request for written policies, guidelines, memoranda, or standard operating procedures related to your request for[:]  Service and assistance animal accommodations in VSO interactions, referrals, or partner agency communications.  Processing and responding to discrimination or retaliation complaints from veterans.  Outreach, follow-up, or welfare checks for unhoused veterans during severe weather events (e.g., winter storm warnings, blizzards, extreme cold).  Public recording or filming in VSO offices or public-facing areas. The City Comptroller’s Open Checkbook Payroll contains current employee department information and can be accessed at [an identified link].

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0815 Page 5 March 19, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower argued against the City’s “blanket Exemption (c) denials without specificity” and stated: The City bundled these two completely different requests together in one response, using general excuses to deny or deflect on both…. No responsive records were provided for most items, and no specificity on exemptions or segregation of non-exempt portions… The “no responsive records” claim for policies/guidelines is suspicious and lacks evidence of search. 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). 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

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0815 Page 6 March 19, 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. Under Exemption (c), the City stated: Your request for training and certification records is being denied pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 4, § 7(26)(c)… The release of the requested information would reveal personal certifications and training of specifically named individuals. This would result in an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy. Your request for records of Chapter 115 Veteran Benefits information is also being denied pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 4, § 7(26)(c)… The release of any records of a Chapter 115 Benefit applicant, even with redactions, would inherently identify an individual seeking public assistance/welfare for financial hardship, which would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Based on the City’s response, although portions of the responsive records may fall under 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. It is additionally uncertain whether the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The City must also provide 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 records, categories of records, or portions of the records 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. Additional Records Based on the information provided in the appeal petition and the City’s response, it is also unclear whether the City possesses records of “policies/guidelines” responsive to Mr. Brower’s request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist the requestor in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). The City must clarify this matter.

Alesia H. Days, Esq. SPR26/0815 Page 7 March 19, 2026 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