Mangino, Michelle v. Revere, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20260829)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0829 Ashley E. Melnik City Clerk City of Revere 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Ms. Melnik: I have received the petition of Michelle Mangino appealing the response of the City of Revere (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 3, 2026, Ms. Mangino requested: [1] Any and all settlement agreements involving the City of Revere and [an identified individual]. [2] Any and all payroll and attendance documents / rosters for [an identified officer] from January 1, 2020 to the present. Please include a detailed account of all compensatory time, overtime, stipends, longevity, military pay, court time, details, etc. and the reasons for this pay. [3] Any and all payroll and attendance documents / rosters for [an identified officer] from January 1, 2020 to the present. Please include a detailed account of all compensatory time, overtime, stipends, longevity, military pay, military leave dates, court time, details, etc. and the reasons for this pay. [4] Any and all payroll and attendance documents/ rosters for [an identified officer] from January 1, 2020 to the present. Please include a detailed account of all compensatory time, overtime, stipends, longevity, military pay, military leave dates, court time, details, etc. and the reasons for this pay. [5] Any and all payroll and attendance documents/ rosters for [an identified individual] from January 1, 2020 to the present. Please include a detailed account of all compensatory time, overtime, and educational incentives received. Also, 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

Ashley E. Melnik SPR26/0829 Page 2 March 19, 2026 include all payroll records and attendance rosters for work performed for the City of Revere’s Traffic Commission. [6] Any and all payroll and attendance documents/rosters for [an identified individual] from January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024. The City responded on February 18, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Mangino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0829, 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 18th Responses In its first February 18, 2026 response, regarding Item 1 of the request, the City provided a response from the City Solicitor, which included a copy of “the McCormick Release and Settlement Agreement,” redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (g) of the Public Records Law. In a second February 18, 2026 response, regarding Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the request, the City provided responsive “payroll and attendance records” from the Revere Police Department. In a third February 18, 2026 response, regarding Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the request, the City provided “responsive documents from the Treasurer’s Office.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Mangino stated:

Ashley E. Melnik SPR26/0829 Page 3 March 19, 2026 For item #1, I’m appealing the response from the city solicitor. I did receive the settlement agreement; however, it contains redactions. For items 2-6, I’m appealing the response from the police department. I did receive payroll and attendance documents for items 2-5; however, I didn’t receive all payroll documents which include but are not limited to court slips, compensatory slips and overtime slips. Also, I’m appealing the denial of “reasons for this pay.” The department does have in its possession, custody and control court slips, compensatory and overtime slips which show “the reason for this pay” and who authorized the pay. These are all part of payroll… For item #6, I’m appealing the response from the treasurer’s office. I did receive payroll documents; however, I didn’t receive attendance documents/rosters… 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. 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.

Ashley E. Melnik SPR26/0829 Page 4 March 19, 2026 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. Regarding the City’s response to Item 1, under Exemption (c), the City stated, “[t]he settlement agreement is confidential to the plaintiff. In addition, the redacted portion is unrelated to public expenditures.” Settlement Agreements The controlling case for redactions made to a settlement agreement is Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). In the Globe decision, the court listed the following information as properly subject to redaction within a settlement agreement under the personnel clause of Exemption (c): (1) promotion of grade; (2) compensation at a different salary grade; (3) adjustment in compensation; (4) waiver of bumping rights and/or recall rights; (5) entitlement to remain on administrative leave; (6) requirement to tender a letter of resignation; (7) demand of voluntary resignation; (8) reinstatement; (9) layoff; (10) agreement by an agency to remove a letter from a personnel file; (11) agreement by an agency concerning the providing of references and their contents; (12) the requirement that an employee meet with a supervisor to review progress of assigned matters; (13) adjustment of an agency’s records to reflect an

Ashley E. Melnik SPR26/0829 Page 5 March 19, 2026 employee’s status; (14) adjustment or continuation of employee benefits, such as unemployment assistance, COBRA, and retirement benefits, and agreement regarding back wages; (15) recitations concerning grievances, including agreement to withdraw a grievance and acknowledgment by an employee of the absence of a pending grievance; (16) a statement of resolution of all claims concerning termination of employment and prior disciplinary actions, (17) agreement to turn in agency property, (18) global resolution involving the entering of a nolle prosequi by a prosecutorial official; (19) language affirming an agency’s legitimate concern for discipline and an employee’s receipt of a memorandum of verbal discipline; and (20) completion by an employer of harassment training. Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34-35. Based on the City’s response, it is uncertain how each of the redactions in the settlement agreement relates to the twenty categories cited in the Globe decision as properly subject to redaction under the personnel clause of Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34-35. The City must clarify this matter. Exemption (g) Exemption (g) applies to: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy and upon a promise of confidentiality; but this subparagraph shall not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or other benefit G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(g). For this exemption to apply in order to withhold a record, a custodian must meet all of the following six (6) criteria contained in the exemption: (1) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information, (2) Voluntarily provided to a government entity, (3) For use in developing government policy, (4) Upon an assurance of confidentiality, (5) Information not submitted as required by law, and (6) Information not submitted as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or benefit. In its response to Item 1, regarding the redactions to the responsive record under Exemption (g), the City stated, “[t]he funds issued were private and were voluntarily provided for no governmental benefit to the payor.”

Ashley E. Melnik SPR26/0829 Page 6 March 19, 2026 Based on the City’s response, it is unclear how the redactions to the responsive agreement fall under Exemption (g). Although the City states that “the funds issued were private and were voluntarily provided for no governmental benefit to the payor,” the City has not demonstrated how the redactions to the record meet all six of the criteria contained in Exemption (g). The City must clarify this matter. Additional Records Based on the information provided in the appeal petition and the City’s responses, it is also unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to Ms. Mangino’s request. Specifically, the City must clarify whether it possesses any additional payroll documents responsive to Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, including “court slips, compensatory and overtime slips which show ‘the reason for this pay’ and who authorized the pay.” The City must also clarify whether it possesses any “attendance documents/rosters” responsive to Item 6. 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 these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Mangino 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. Ms. Mangino 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: Michelle Mangino