Zach Podolsky v. Westminster, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20253252)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 19, 2025 SPR25/3252 Stephanie Welch Executive Assistant to the Police Chief Westminster Police Department 7 South Street Westminster, MA 01473 Dear Ms. Welch: I have received the petition of Zach Podolsky, of Metropolitan Reporting Bureau, appealing the response of Westminster Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 24, 2025, the Metropolitan Reporting Bureau requested a specified incident report. The Department responded twice on November 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Podolsky petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3252, 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. 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. 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

Stephanie Welch SPR25/3252 Page 2 November 19, 2025 The Department’s November 5th Responses In its first November 5, 2025 response, the Department stated: …Metropolitan Reporting Bureau is a commercial entity that collects accident reports and related data for resale to insurance companies and other third parties for profit. Please be advised that pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 66, § 10) and 950 CMR 32.06(1)(h), a records custodian may deny a request when the records are sought for a commercial purpose... Accordingly, this request – and all future substantially similar requests from Metropolitan Reporting Bureau – are hereby denied on the basis that they are for a commercial purpose and not in furtherance of the public’s right to know. In a second response on November 5, 2025, the Department claimed that it received the request on October 28, 2025. In addition, the Department stated: Upon review of Metropolitan Reporting Bureau’s own website, it is clear that the company operates as a commercial entity that collects, processes, and resells public records, specifically police accident and incident reports, to insurance companies and other private sector clients for profit... Metropolitan seeks records not to advance public transparency, but to obtain and resell them as part of a for- profit enterprise. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Podolsky stated: Metropolitan Reporting Bureau is contracted with Insurance companies to source these records in order to adjust and investigate claims after an insureds loss. For the past 60+ years we have been sourcing these records and our company conforms to Federal and State laws including the DPPA and GLBA. We certify the use on each order as well as through contractual obligations that the documents are for Insurance claims purposes only. Also, we do not profit off these request[s], we pass on a small service fee per order to source and send the document back to the requesting entity… In an email to this office on November 6, 2025, Mr. Podolsky provided the following supplemental information: We do not resell, mark up reports costs, or sell to the general public, we are simply acting as an agent to pull these reports so the carrier can adjust claims. The cost that we incur is what we pass on to the customer plus a small service fee so if the report is free the customer would only be subject to the service fee. The service fee covers our costs of doing business…

Stephanie Welch SPR25/3252 Page 3 November 19, 2025 Requests Solely for a Commercial Purpose The Supervisor of Records may deny an appeal for, among other reasons, if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: the public records request is made solely for a commercial purpose. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(3). Please be advised that the term “commercial purpose” as used in the Public Records Law shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). Please note that Mr. Podolsky states in his appeal “Metropolitan Reporting Bureau is contracted with Insurance companies to source these records in order to adjust and investigate claims,” and “pass[es] on a small service fee per order to source and send the document back to the requesting entity.” Where the request is being made on behalf of a private company in furtherance of the company’s commercial purpose, I decline to opine on this matter. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.02. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Podolsky is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Zach Podolsky