Randall Lucas v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20252186)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 1, 2025 SPR25/2186 Michael Vigneux Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Vigneux: I have received the petition of Randall Lucas appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 14, 2025, Mr. Lucas requested the following: [1] [T]he log of all 911 calls received by Department of Emergency Communications (DEC) between 10:30 AM ET and 12:30 PM ET on 2025-05-08. For clarity, at least the timestamp, length of call, categorization and disposition of the call are sought along with any unique identifier. At least the last 4 digits of the inbound number is sought, but any sort of anonymized partial identified that would allow the same calling number within the produced dataset to be matched would be acceptable (for clarity, to minimize any redaction burden or privacy concern we are not requesting the full caller’s number, but would like to be able to see if the same number calls multiple times). The full calling number or specific textual notes on each call are not sought[;] For efficiency, if a record containing substantially all of the above already exists (such as a daily 911 log), we would accept that with gratitude. [2] [A]udio recordings of 911 calls between 11:00 AM and 11:45 AM ET on 2025-05-08 that request police or EMS assistance and that pertain to the vicinity of Eureka Street, Worcester[;] [3] [A]udio recording of COMIRS radio talkgroups known in Worcester as “Frequency 4” and “Frequency 11” between 10:30 AM and 12:30 PM ET on 2025-05-08. 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

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2186 Page 2 August 1, 2025 On May 16, 2025, Mr. Lucas stated, “[i]n light of the 2025-05-16 release by the City of Worcester of certain 911 audio recordings [Item] 2 of this request…is rescinded.” The City responded on May 14, June 6, June 30, July 2, and July 10, 2025. Unsatisfied by the responses, Mr. Lucas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2186, 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. See 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 City’s Responses On May 14, 2025, the City assigned the request reference number W070373-051425. On June 6, 2025, the City stated, “[t]he City requires additional time, up to an additional 10 business days as permitted by statute, to complete the work associated with your request.” On June 30, 2025, the City provided “dispatch recordings” pertaining to Item 2. On July 2, 2025, the City stated, “[t]he City will look into your inquiry and provide a supplemental response to your request.” On July 10, 2025, the City sought clarification regarding Items 1 and 3 of the request. Subsequently on July 10, 2025, Mr. Lucas provided the clarification sought.

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2186 Page 3 August 1, 2025 Current Appeal In his July 25, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Lucas stated that he had received no further response from the City. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Lucas clarified his request on July 10, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to Mr. Lucas’ request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide the responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Lucas 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. Lucas may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Michael Vigneux SPR25/2186 Page 4 August 1, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Randall Lucas Janice E. Thompson, Esq.