David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253825)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 12, 2026 SPR25/3825 Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 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 November 26, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “discrimination complaints filed by [an identified individual] against [an identified individual].” On December 2, 2025, Mr. Webb modified his request to “…all complaints filed by [an identified individual], even if it does not specify that it was regarding [an identified individual]. The City responded on December 2, 2025 and December 12, 2025, and assigned reference number W080637-112625 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3825, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided supplemental responses on December 29, 2025, and December 30, 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. Att’y 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 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 Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3825 Page 2 January 12, 2026 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. The City’s December 2nd and December 12th Responses In its December 2, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he City of Worcester has conducted a diligent review of its files and has determined there are no responsive documents to your request.” On December 12, 2025, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and responded as follows: If records exist, they would not be subject to disclosure pursuant to the following exemptions of the Public Records Law (G.L. c. 4, section 7). Exemption (c), the privacy exemption…. The release of information regarding such allegations risks a chilling effect on complainants and witnesses, as well as unintended and unwarranted damage to an employee’s reputation. Such a release may also prejudice and compromise the integrity of the City’s internal investigatory process. Release of such information will likely compromise the City’s goal to deter discrimination and impair the department’s integrity as a neutral body. While an Investigator may eventually determine that there is lack of probable cause to substantiate a complaint, publicizing the allegations will undoubtedly cause irreparable harm to an employee’s reputation. Likewise, the public release of information regarding the participation of witnesses and complainants in investigations may place them at risk of retaliation for engaging in protected activity. In turn, deterring complainant and witness participation in investigations undermines the City’s ability to accomplish its mission of a bias-free City workforce. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Webb contends, “I am appealing the response of the city based on the belief that these records should not be exempt from public disclosure.” No Duty to Create Records 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public

Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3825 Page 3 January 12, 2026 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). However, 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). On December 29, 2025, the City provided a supplemental response, stating, “[t]he city of Worcester … hereby reaffirms its response that no responsive records exist.” On December 30, 2025, the City responded, “[t]he City has no document responsive to your request seeking ‘all complaints filed by [an identified individual], even if it does not specify that it was regarding her boss, [an identified individual].’ … My department is not withholding records….” In an additional response on December 30, 2025, the City confirmed, “[t]he city does not possess any ‘complaints filed by [an identified individual] prior to her resigning from the City Managers office.’” Conclusion Where the City has confirmed it does not possess records responsive to Mr. Webb’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Webb 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb