David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253391)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 2, 2025 SPR25/3381; SPR25/3386; SPR25/3388; SPR25/3389; SPR25/3390; SPR25/3391; SPR25/3392; Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received seven (7) petitions of David Webb appealing the responses of the City of Worcester (City) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). SPR25/3381 On September 27, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “[a]ny Police reports and all BWC from the two officers who responded to the intersection of Grafton and Cutler…September 9th between 11am and 2pm…” The City responded on September 27, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077644-092725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3381, was opened as a result. SPR25/3386 On September 27, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “March 18th 2025, . . . duxbury Arrested Attempted Breaking and entering All police reports and bodyworn footage [sic]…” The City responded on September 27, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077639-092725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3386, was opened as a result. 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. SPR25/3381; SPR25/3386; SPR25/3388; Page 2 SPR25/3389; SPR25/3390; SPR25/3391; December 2, 2025 SPR25/3392 SPR25/3388 On September 29, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “[r]eports mentioning [an identified individual] from 2024 and 2025…” The City responded on September 29, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077762-092925 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3388, was opened as a result. SPR25/3389 On September 27, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “[a]ny police reports from the two officers who spoke with the black man without enabling their bodyworn cameras at Rockland Plaza street September 9th between 9am and 1pm, or the third officer they met with immediately prior at the intersection of golf and green street...” The City responded on September 27, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077643-092725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3389, was opened as a result. SPR25/3390 On September 27, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “[r]eports regarding the shooting on Dorothy ave, September 2025…” The City responded on September 27, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077642-092725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3390, was opened as a result. SPR25/3391 On September 27, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “BWC, including two minutes prior to each instance of handcuffing for each of the arrests made shortly after 10pm in the common behind city hall 7-19-25, if the city cannot provide this record free of charge, please adjust the request to be for only the seeking footage from only the nonwhite people who were arrested that evening, and please inform me which officers you are providing so I know which arrests are not being included. If you are unable to do this, please provide me with a list of officers who had their BWC worn and enabled, and timeframes available to me...” The City responded on September 27, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077638-092725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3391, was opened as a result.

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3381; SPR25/3386; SPR25/3388; Page 3 SPR25/3389; SPR25/3390; SPR25/3391; December 2, 2025 SPR25/3392 SPR25/3392 On September 27, 2025, Mr. Webb sought, “[t]he WPD crime reports provided to neighborhood groups for the month of August, 2025 – please not[e] I am seeking the complete document read and referenced by officer in neighborhood meetings, that include the times[,] addresses[,] and dates of incidents, this should not require any redaction as it was prepared for public presentation…” The City responded on September 27, and October 14, 2025, assigning reference number P077633-092725 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3392, 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 October 14th Responses In its October 14, 2025 responses, the City stated, “[t]he City requires additional time, up to 15 business days a[s] provided by statute, to complete the work associated with your request.” Current Appeal In his November 14, 2025 petitions to this office, Mr. Webb stated, “[o]n October 15th, the[y] told me they would require 15 business days, but it is now November 14th and the city has still not complied with the public records law in this matter.”

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3381; SPR25/3386; SPR25/3388; Page 4 SPR25/3389; SPR25/3390; SPR25/3391; December 2, 2025 SPR25/3392 Timeframe for Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a 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 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. Webb submitted his requests on September 27, and September 29, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the requests in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search 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 responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Webb 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. Webb may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb