Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260121)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 20, 2026 SPR26/0121 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester – Law Department 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: On January 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records, and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the City furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, David Webb. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 27, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “BWC from first two officers to enter the apartment 9/24/24 [a named individual.]” I understand the City has assigned this request reference number P081968-122725. On December 27, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “[p]olice reports mentioning [a named individual] from 2024.” I understand the City has assigned this request reference number P081969-122725. On December 28, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “police wagon footage from the intersection of Harrison and Water street Sunday, October 26th.” I understand the City has assigned this request reference number P081976-122825. On December 28, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “BWC and any written report from the two officers involved in the police initiated interaction at ... Foster street (the WRTA hub) December 18th 2025 5:30pm[.]” I understand the City has assigned this request reference number P081978- 122825. On December 28, 2025, Mr. Webb requested “March 18th 2025 ... Arrested Attempted Breaking and entering All police reports and bodyworn footage[.]” I understand the City has assigned this request reference number P081984-122825. 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 Manning SPR26/0121 Page 2 January 20, 2026 Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the City requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The City of Worcester seeks an extension of time to fulfill the above-mentioned requests. The City estimates that there are 1519 total minutes of footage and 30 pages of reports responsive to these requests. As noted in its petition to assess fees, the competition of these requests will involve the segregation and redaction of the responsive body worn camera footage to protect exempt information. In the time span that these requests were placed the City has received approximately 870 additional public records requests from other requestors. Mr. Webb has also placed an additional 14 requests with the City. It is likely that a portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the City’s Law

Michael Manning SPR26/0121 Page 3 January 20, 2026 Department. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City respectfully asks that the Supervisor grant an extension of thirty business days from receipt of payment of its fee estimate. I find that in light of the need to search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current request, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the

Michael Manning SPR26/0121 Page 4 January 20, 2026 municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition to Assess Fees In its January 13th petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the City requests the following: [T]he City requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (f), Under Exemption (c), the City would redact any information constituting intimate details of a highly personal nature of individuals who appear in the responsive footage. This would include information such as private email addresses and telephone numbers that an officer’s body camera may capture. The City will also redact any material related to medical information of those shown in the footage. Under Exemption (f), the City will redact any footage that may identify a voluntary witness or complainant. The City will also redact records that may reveal the course of an ongoing investigation or potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials. In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. 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) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the City must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii).

Michael Manning SPR26/0121 Page 5 January 20, 2026 Please note, Mr. Webb has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb