David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20252609)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 16, 2025 SPR25/2609 Janice E. Thompson, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received the petition of David Webb 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 August 5, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “BWC of the The [sic] first officer on scene 76 FRANKLIN_ST between 11:50PM 8-9-24 and 12:05 AM 8-10-24.” The City responded on August 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2609, 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 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2609 Page 2 September 16, 2025 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 City’s August 22nd Response In its August 22, 2025 response, the City indicated that it previously provided the responsive record to Mr. Webb in its response to a prior request from Mr. Webb to the City. Specifically, the City advised, “[t]he record responsive to your request . . . is the same record provided in response to your prior request, W074633-072825. The record provided 07/31/2025 remains available under that reference number.” Current Appeal In his September 3, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Webb contends that the City possesses additional responsive records. He states, “[t]he single responsive record provided in W074633- 072825, which was seeking footage from the officerS that responded, rather than a sole officer did not in fact include [‘]BWC of the The [sic] first officer[’] as requested . . . as there are already officers on scene when the footage provided begins.” Records in Existence The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on the City’s response, in conjunction with Mr. Webb’s appeal petition, I find that it is unclear whether the City possesses any additional records responsive to this request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City is in possession of a record responsive to body worn camera footage from “[t]he . . . first officer on scene[,]” as indicated in Mr. Webb’s above request. It is also uncertain whether this particular record existed and was destroyed, or whether the record did not initially exist. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). Further, if the record was destroyed, I find that the City must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Webb with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Webb may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R.

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2609 Page 3 September 16, 2025 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb