David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253147)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2025 SPR25/3147 Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester Law Department 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: 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 27, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “BWC and written report from all three officers involved in taking the report of [an identified individual] regarding [an identified individual] at City Hall January or February 2025[.]” The City responded on October 14, 2025, and October 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3147, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided additional information in an email to this office on November 3, 2025. 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 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

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3147 Page 2 November 6, 2025 or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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 14, 2025 response, the City advised that it “requires additional time, up to 15 business days as provided by statute, to complete the work associated with [the] request.” In its October 27, 2025 response, the City stated, “[b]ased on the information provided, there are no responsive records for this request.” Upon review of the appeal file, it is my understanding that following the City’s October 27th response, Mr. Webb provided clarification regarding his request in a message to the City via its Public Records Portal on October 27, 2025. Specifically, Mr. Webb stated, “the report was made by [an identified officer], I believe the incident number was 202400010020, and it was from January 31st 2024[.]” Current Appeal In his October 27, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Webb contends that the City possesses responsive records. He states, “I have provided [the City] additional information, but do not anticipate them following the Massachusetts Public Record Laws. . . .” In an email to this office on November 3, 2025, a representative of the City stated, “Mr. Webb has been told that there are no responsive records for January 31, 2024, related to an interaction between Worcester Police officers and [an identified individual] at city hall for the purposes of taking a statement.” Based on a telephone conversation between a representative of the City and a Public Records Division staff member on November 5, 2025, it is my understanding that there may be records responsive to Mr. Webb’s request. Specifically, the City has indicated that based on the information provided in Mr. Webb’s above October 27, 2025 correspondence as well as in additional requests to the City, it is my understanding that there may be records responsive to the incident number and officer information he has provided. Please be advised that 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). However, 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any records responsive to the request exist.

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3147 Page 3 November 6, 2025 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. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb