DaSilva, Ana v. Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School (SPR 20260930)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2026 SPR26/0930 Maria Fredette Records Access Officer Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School 1121 Ashley Boulevard New Bedford, MA 02745 Dear Ms. Fredette: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of the Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School (School/GNBVT/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 12, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested: [1] Records of Complaints or Allegations Involving [an identified individual] during [an identified individual] employment with GNBVT. This includes:  written complaints  parent or student complaints  staff complaints or concerns  emails documenting a complaint  any record showing that a complaint was received Please redact student names or identifying information as required by FERPA. [2] Records of Any Investigation Conducted by GNBVT Involving [an identified individual] This includes:  notices of investigation  findings or conclusions  summaries of investigative steps  letters of concern  any final determination I am not requesting draft notes or deliberative materials. 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

Maria Fredette SPR26/0930 Page 2 March 25, 2026 [3] Records of Final Disciplinary Action, if Any This includes:  written warnings  reprimands  suspension notices  last‑chance agreements  any final action taken These records are routinely disclosable with redactions. [4] Records of Administrative Leave or Reassignment This includes:  notices placing [an identified individual] on paid or unpaid administrative leave  notices of temporary reassignment  any final documentation of such actions [5] Records Required to Be Reported to DESE If applicable:  603 CMR 7.15 educator misconduct reports  any licensure‑related notifications  any mandatory reporting to DESE regarding [an identified individual] If no such records exist, please provide a brief certification of nonexistence. [6] Records of Resignation or Separation  This includes:  resignation letter  separation agreement  settlement agreement (with redactions as needed) These documents are not categorically exempt and often contain segregable portions. [7] School Committee Records Related to [an identified individual] This includes:  minutes  agendas  votes  public‑facing documents referencing his employment or separation Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0565 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 3, 2026). In my March 3rd determination, I

Maria Fredette SPR26/0930 Page 3 March 25, 2026 ordered the School to identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold or redact under Exemption (c). The School responded on March 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0930, 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva contends: The March 13 response from outside counsel does not identify a single record, category, or document being withheld. Instead, it provides only broad legal arguments and general references to Exemption (c). … … In July 2025, the District acknowledged the existence of responsive categories— including complaints, investigations, internal communications, and separation‑related discussions—and stated that certain materials would be withheld under Exemption (c). The March 13, 2026 response now claims no such records exist for items 1–5, while simultaneously invoking Exemption (c) for item 6. The School’s March 13th Response On March 13, 2026, the School stated, “the District reiterates that it does not have in its custody or possession any records responsive to requests no.(s) 1-5.” With regard to Item 6, the

Maria Fredette SPR26/0930 Page 4 March 25, 2026 School stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). With regard to Item 7, the School provided a website link to access responsive records. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 – No Duty to Create Records 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). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). With regard to Items 1-5, in a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and a representative of the School, the School confirmed that no responsive records exist. Consequently, I find the School has met its burden in responding to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the request. Item 6: Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: 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 – Medical and Personnel Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). 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

Maria Fredette SPR26/0930 Page 5 March 25, 2026 Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Association v. School 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. 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. In its response, the School states:

Maria Fredette SPR26/0930 Page 6 March 25, 2026 The District, and the individual former employee, have a considerable privacy interest in the requested records concerning his separation from employment. The information concerning the resignation or separation of an individual is that of a highly personal nature, similar to other information contained within a personnel file. The information sought is not the type of information that is available from other sources, and thus would militate against disclosure. See PETA v. Department of Agricultural Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 294 (2017). While the public may have a general interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding manner, allowing the public to examine, without restriction, every detail of an employee’s hiring, promotion, and separation would render Exemption (c) to be superfluous. See Richter v. Philips, 2581CV0054 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2025)(finding disclosure of investigation report was personnel information would result in substantial invasion of privacy to complainant, third-party employees, and the employee complained against). Here, the request has not described with particularity how disclosure of any of the requested information would further the collective public interest in obtaining the requested information. See Allen v. Holyoke Hosp., 398 Mass. 372, 381 (disclosure must support the “collective public interest”)(emphasis added). The particular concerns of any individual requestor are irrelevant. Id. Moreover, it is also irrelevant that the specifically named individual is no longer a District employee. Because the requestor has failed to carry the burden that the public interest “substantially” outweighs the privacy interest, the exemption should apply as a matter of law to prevent disclosure. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. With regard to Item 6, it is unclear from the School’s response, which specific records the School intends to withhold. The School must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold or redact under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. DaSilva 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. DaSilva may further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Maria Fredette SPR26/0930 Page 7 March 25, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva