David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253122)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 4, 2025 SPR25/3122 Michael Vigneux Public Records Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Vigneux: 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 September 18, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “[c]orrespondence between Worcester city employee and state dcr revealing that Worcester knew the charges weren’t proportionally correct at the time they made the agreement with the state. In regards to [an identified] lawsuit, this was a document provided to the jury in the recent case. . . .” The City responded on October 3, 2025 and October 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3122, 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. 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 SPR25/3122 Page 2 November 4, 2025 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 City’s Responses In its October 3, 2025 response, the City assigned Mr. Webb’s request the reference number “W077167-091825” for tracking purposes and further indicated that it “requires additional time, up to 15 business days as provided by statute, to complete the work associated with [his] request.” In its October 6, 2025 response, the City advised, “[p]lease note that this litigation began in 2012 and there are thousands of paper records concerning this trial.” Seeking clarification regarding Mr. Webb’s request, the City inquired, “[i]s there any way you can further reasonably describe the document that is being sought? Can you provide the name of the city employee who made the correspondence to the state?” Current Appeal In his October 24, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Webb states, “I am appealing W077167‐ 091825 due to the substantive nature of the response from the City. . . .” He contends, “[t]he city has asked for clarification, but does not appear to have made any attempt to locate the requested records.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that Mr. Webb modified his request in an email to the City and copied to this office on November 3, 2025. Conclusion Where this appeal was opened as a result of the City’s October 6th and October 9th responses to the above September 18, 2025 request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. This office encourages Mr. Webb and the City to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Mr. Webb may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response to his modified November 3, 2025 request within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb