Sullivan, Mike v. Office of Campaign and Political Finance (SPR 20261057)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 6, 2026 SPR26/1057 Jason A. Tait Education Director Office of Campaign and Political Finance One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Mr. Tait: I have received the petition of Mike Sullivan appealing the response of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (Office/OCPF) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 22, 2026, Mr. Sullivan requested, “[a]ny and all agreements made between OCPF and any employees of OCPF, either past or present employees, completed from 2021 until the present.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0693 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 9, 2026). In my March 9th determination, it was my understanding that the Office intended on providing a further response to Mr. Sullivan. Consequently, I closed the appeal. The Office responded on March 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Sullivan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1057, 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 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

Jason A. Tait SPR26/1057 Page 2 April 6, 2026 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 his March 23, 2026 appeal, Mr. Sullivan states, “[p]lease accept this email as my formal request to appeal the response by OCPF (see below) withholding one document in its entirety. It is my belief that OCPF’s position is not consistent with the Public Records law, especially as it pertains to withholding settlements.” The Office’s March 23rd Response In its March 23, 2026 response, the Office stated, “[o]n February 4, 2026, OCPF provided Michael Sullivan with copies of seven (7) redacted documents and withheld one document as it constituted personnel records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7, Twenty-sixth paragraph, subparagraph (c)” of the Public Records Law. 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.

Jason A. Tait SPR26/1057 Page 3 April 6, 2026 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. In its response, the Office stated, “[t]his office withholds one document pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, §7, Twenty-sixth paragraph, subparagraph (c) as it constitutes personnel records. The entire document is a statement of resolution of all claims concerning termination of employment and disciplinary action, disclosure of which would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is therefore exempt from disclosure.” 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 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.

Jason A. Tait SPR26/1057 Page 4 April 6, 2026 Based on the Office’s response, it is unclear how the settlement agreement can be withheld in its entirety pursuant to Globe Newspaper Co., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A at 34- 35. The Office must explain whether the settlement agreement can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein v. Police Com’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any nonexempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Sullivan 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. Sullivan may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mike Sullivan