Herman, Colman v. Secretary of the Commonwealth-Administrative Services Division (SPR 20261312)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1312 Sofya Gray Records Access Officer Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Administrative Services Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1719 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Gray: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the Administrative Services Division (Division) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 27, 2026, Mr. Herman requested the following: [C]opies of any and all communications related to my March 25, 2026 public records request below seeking documents related to the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. Communications include, but are not limited to, emails, text messages, letters, memoranda, faxes, and/or notes. If any related communications were conducted via personal devices, they are public records and therefore the devices must be searched and any responsive records must be produced. The Division responded on April 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1312, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Division provided a further response on April 24, 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). 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

Sofya Gray SPR26/1312 Page 2 April 27, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Herman states the following: Thia í an appeal. You did not proverlt claim exemption (c).’ I cannot open many of the documents, See attached for example. (sic) The Division’s April 10th and April 24th Responses In its April 10, 2026 response, the Division provides responsive records in redacted form and cites Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In its April 24, 2026 response, the Division provided further explanation of its claims for redacting the record pursuant to Exemption (c). See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). 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.

Sofya Gray SPR26/1312 Page 3 April 27, 2026 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 April 10th response, under Exemption (c), the Division states that “redactions were made pursuant to exemption (c) of the public records law.” In its April 24th response, the Division further explains the following: In responding to your March 27th records request, our office provided responsive records with redactions made to phone numbers and email addresses pursuant to Exemption (c) of the public records law. . . . The redactions were made to email addresses and phone numbers because if released they could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as they are considered to be intimate details, in which the interest of privacy outweighs the public interests that disclosure would bring. Personal email addresses, which are generally not listed within any sort of directory or available by any other means of a public search, similar in many respects to unlisted phone numbers, favor a finding of non-disclosure. The public interest in disclosure of such phone numbers and email addresses does not outweigh the privacy interests associated with the redacted information. Consequently, I find that the Division has met its burden in responding to Mr. Herman’s request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Herman is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares

Sofya Gray SPR26/1312 Page 4 April 27, 2026 jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman