The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
Shawn A. Williams
Supervisor ofRecords

February 23, 2015
SPR14/729
Ms. Donnalyn Lynch Kahn, Esq.
City Solicitor, City ofNewton
1000 Commonwealth A venue
Newton, Massachusetts 01459
Dear Attorney Lynch Kahn:
I have received the petition of Todd Wallack of the Boston Globe appealing the response
ofthe City ofNewton (City) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950
C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Wallack requested from the City Police Department
(Department), copies of:
1. Incident reports, internal affairs reports or other records pertaining to officers
that have been arrested for operation of a motor vehicle under the influence
(QUI) since January 1, 2012.
2. High-resolution photos of each officer arrested for QUI since January 1, 2012.
3. Department policies for disciplining officers arrested for QUI.
With respect to Request #1, the City provided redacted records from the personnel file of
the sole officer arrested for QUI since January 1, 2012. The City redacted the name of the
officer pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. With respect to
Request #2, the City denied providing a photo of the officer in question pursuant to Exemption
(c).
In the December 16 letter you explain that the City has no policies for disciplining
officers arrested for OUI. The duty to comply with requests for information extends only to those
records that exist and are in the custody of the custodian of records at the time of the request.
See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) (defining "custodian" as the public employee with routine access to or
control of public records). This portion of the appeal is closed.

Exemption (c)
Exemption (c) contains two distinct and independent clauses, each requiring its own
analysis. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432-33 (1983). The
first clause applies to personnel information that is of a personal nature and relates to a
OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914
www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

 Ms. Donnalyn Lynch Kahn, Esq.
Page Two
February 23,2015

SPR14/729

specifically named individual. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987);
Globe Newspaper Co., 388 Mass. at 438.
The Supreme Judicial Court has defined personnel information as information that is
"useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee." Wakefield Teachers Ass'n v.
School Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). For example, "employment applications, employee
work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination
information pertaining to a particular employee," may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of
Exemption (c). Id.
In a letter dated December 16, 2014 you explain that the records were redacted to protect
identifying information related to a specific officer. The City explained that it cannot release the
photograph of the officer without identifying the officer.
It is the finding of this office that the City may withhold such records from disclosure
pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. I generally have found
photographs of public employees to be public records; however, in this instance the disclosure
would serve to reveal identifying information regarding a City employee subjected to discipline.
Accordingly, in this limited circumstance the photo, coupled with the redacted identity of the
officer was properly withheld pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c). This administrative
appeal is now closed.

Supervisor of Records
cc: Mr. Todd Wallack