Garrity, Mary Kate v. Abington, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20261418)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1418 Jeffrey S. Postell Deputy Chief of Police Abington Police Department 215 Central Street Abington, MA 02351 Dear Deputy Chief Postell: I have received the petition of Mary Kate Garrity appealing the response of the Abington Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 30, 2025, Ms. Garrity requested the following: [1] [A]ny and all records, documents, reports, correspondence, memoranda, notes, emails, investigative findings, and related materials—whether in paper or electronic form—concerning, referencing, or arising from the hiring process and background investigation associated with [a named individual]’s application for the position of Desk Attendant. [2] This request includes, but is not limited to: • All background investigation reports, summaries, findings, notes, or conclusions • All internal and external emails, memoranda, and correspondence • Any hiring-related documentation, evaluations, or recommendations [3] Including records authored by, sent to, or received from the following individuals (whether acting in an official or advisory capacity): • [A list of three named individuals] • Any other member of the Abington Police Department involved in the hiring or background investigation process [4] Additionally, please include any reports, emails, memoranda, or correspondence involving or authored by: • [A named individual], South Shore Regional Emergency Communications Center 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

Jeffrey S. Postell SPR26/1418 Page 2 April 29, 2026 • [A second named individual], South Shore Regional Emergency Communications Center[.] The Department responded on January 6, and February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Garrity petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1418, 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 Department’s January 6th and February 2nd Response In its January 6, 2026 response, the Department indicated that it would require additional time to respond to the request. In its February 2, 2026 response, the Department cites Exemptions (c) and (l) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (l). 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).

Jeffrey S. Postell SPR26/1418 Page 3 April 29, 2026 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. 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

Jeffrey S. Postell SPR26/1418 Page 4 April 29, 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. In its response, under Exemption (c), the Department states the following: Exemption (C), The Privacy Exemption; the language of the exemption limits its application to: personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Releasing this information in the aggregate could cause an action. The second clause of the privacy exemption applies to requests for records that implicates privacy interests. Its application is limited to “intimate details of a highly personal nature”. Examples of “intimate details of a highly personal nature” include marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Portions of records containing such information are exempt unless there is a paramount public interest in disclosure. Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear how the responsive records constitute one of the core categories of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. It is also uncertain how the records contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, or how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. It is additionally uncertain whether any of the withheld information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the Department did not 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. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The Department must clarify these matters. Exemption (l) Exemption (l) permits the withholding of records that are: questions and answers, scoring keys and sheets and other materials used to develop, administer or score a test, examination or assessment instrument; provided, however, that such materials are intended to be used for another test, examination or assessment instrument G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(l). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (l). The general purpose of Exemption (l) is to prevent individuals from gaining an unfair advantage by accessing test questions and test answers prior to the administration of an examination. As long as the same materials are used to administer subsequent examinations, the custodian of records may continue to withhold the materials pursuant to Exemption (l).

Jeffrey S. Postell SPR26/1418 Page 5 April 29, 2026 Under Exemption (l), the Department states the following: Exemption (L), Exam Information; the language of the exemption limits it application to: questions and answers, scoring keys, and sheets and other materials used to develop, administer or score a test, examination or assessment instrument; provided, however, that such materials are intended to be used for another test, examination, or assessment instrument. Based on the Department’s response it is unclear how the withheld records constitute the type of material contemplated under Exemption (l). Additionally, it is unclear how the withheld records would allow individuals to gain an advantage. It is also unclear from the Department’s response whether the withheld materials will be used for another examination. The Department must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear from the Department’s response, which specific records the Department intends to withhold. The Department must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemptions (c) and (l). G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The Department must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Garrity 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. Garrity may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mary Kate Garrity