Massachusetts Appeals Court Panel Clarifies Relationship Between Screening Committees and the Public Records Law

On October 15, 2026, a panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued a Rule 23.0 decision clarifying “exemption c” defined in the Public Records Law, G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (c), as it applies to documents used in executive session by a screening committee established by a governmental body under “Purpose 8” of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(8). The decision is Loreti v. Town of Arlington, No. 25-P-2026 (October 15, 2026).

“Purpose 8” authorizes the body to conduct the initial assessment and interview of applicants for a position by a screening committee in executive session, from which that committee must produce at least two candidates to the body for further assessment and interview in open session(s). In pertinent part, “exemption c” excludes from the definition of “public records” “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; …”.

In Loreti, a member of the public requested the names and resumes of three candidates who, with a fourth, had emerged from the initial screening but who withdrew from consideration before the next, public stage. In addition, the requester sought an email from one of the three withdrawn candidates in which they explained why they had withdrawn. A Superior Court justice dismissed the requester’s complaint that the Town had violated the Public Records Law by withholding the documents and an appeal followed.

The panel first relied on prior decisions holding that the Purpose 8 executive session provision recognizes that, as was the case in Loreti with at least two of the candidates, applicants may hold current jobs with employers who have no knowledge that they are applying for another position and may not want knowledge of their application to become public. The panel rejected the argument that once an applicant becomes a finalist that information is public. It ruled that the names and resumes of the candidates in these circumstances “fall squarely within the privacy exemption” in “exemption c” which outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

The panel addressed the explanatory email from one of the withdrawn applicants differently. It held that the name and email address could be redacted under “exemption c”. The panel further ruled, however, that the text of the email was subject to disclosure because “the reason given for withdrawal is generic and vague and refers to ‘family considerations’; it does not expose any personal details that ought to be kept private; and the redaction of the withdrawn candidate’s identity sufficiently protects any privacy interest.”

This decision illustrates the nuances of the interplay between the “Purpose 8” screening process under the Open Meeting Law and “exemption c” of the Public Records Law. The legal inquiry is always fact-specific and care must be taken when applying these statutes.

We represent governmental bodies in matters involving both statutes, their interplay, and their application.

This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.