Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260129)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 28, 2026 SPR26/0128; SPR26/0129 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: I have received the petitions of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 27, 2025, Mr. Webb requested the following: SPR26/0128 “Police reports mentioning [an identified individual] from 2024.” SPR26/0129 “BWC from first two officers to enter the apartment 9/24/24 [an identified individual].” It is my understanding that the City assigned the requests reference numbers P081969- 122725 and P081968-122725, respectively. Previous Petition These requests were the subject of a previous petition from the City. See SPR26/0121 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 20, 2026). In my January 20th determination, I found the City had established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days to fulfill these requests, as well as for three additional requests submitted my Mr. Webb on December 28, 2025. In addition, I found that the City could assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. In addition to its petition, the City also responded to Mr. Webb on January 13, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office 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 SPR26/0128; SPR26/0129 Page 2 January 28, 2026 and these appeals, SPR26/0128 and SPR26/0129, were opened as a result. While these appeals were pending, the City provided supplemental responses on January 14, 2026 and January 27, 2026. 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 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). The City’s January 13th, January 14th, and January 27th Responses In the City’s January 13, 2026 response, the City provided a fee estimate of $1,923.75 to provide records responsive to both requests, as well as to three additional public records requests placed by Mr. Webb on December 28, 2025 for the following records: P081976-122825 “[P]olice wagon footage from the intersection of Harrison and Water street Sunday, October 26th.” P081978-122825 “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.” P081984-122825 “March 18th 2025 …[D]uxberry Arrested Attempted Breaking and entering all police reports and bodyworn footage.”

Michael Manning SPR26/0128; SPR26/0129 Page 3 January 28, 2026 In support of its fee estimate, the City stated: The City located approximately 1519 minutes of responsive Body-Worn Camera (BWC) footage to these requests and approximately 30 pages of responsive reports. Please note that the estimated page count for the reports responsive to P081984-122825 has not been included in this estimate as they were produced in response to a prior request (P081984-122825). Pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(a), the City respectfully declines to produce these records a second time… Properly responding to requests for BWC video(s) is a labor-intensive endeavor. The process requires locating the requested video(s), reviewing each video at least twice - once to determine if redaction and/or withholding are required pursuant to the exemptions enumerated under the Public Records Law and then making necessary edits (redaction) to the BWC footage. The Redaction Specialist locates the videos, if any, and determines the status of the videos which may involve conferring with WPD. The Redaction Specialist then undertakes the initial review and redaction necessary to prepare the video for disclosure. If legal questions regarding content arise throughout the process these questions are brought to the attention of the Records Access Officer and/or an attorney in the Law Department working on the BWC program. Once the first draft of the redacted video is complete, the video is reviewed; any additional edits are noted and then applied by the Redaction Specialist if necessary. Note that application of video redaction, even with use of available tools to maximize efficiency, often involves frame-by- frame review. No BWC video can be released until this entire process including legal review is complete. The City then prepares the written response to the requestor outlining any portions of the video that have been redacted or withheld. At a minimum, completion of the initial search, segregation, review, and redaction process outlined above requires 3 minutes of labor per one minute of footage, not including finalization of the record, and preparation of the written response. The hourly rate for the lowest paid employees capable of performing the search for the records, performing all tasks associated with this request, and completing review and redaction exceeds $25.00 per hour. The City has reduced the hourly labor charges to $25.00 per hour. The City may not charge for the first two hours of labor required to fulfill this request. In order to fulfill the requests numbered above, the City also must undertake a review of and redact where necessary the approximately 30 pages of responsive reports. Providing written narratives requires locating the responsive reports, extracting the reports from the Records Management System, and reviewing each document to locate information not subject to disclosure. Redactions are then applied to the document; a second review is performed prior to disclosure to confirm that the document has been properly redacted. On average, this process

Michael Manning SPR26/0128; SPR26/0129 Page 4 January 28, 2026 requires 2 minutes of labor per page, not including finalization of the record and preparation of the written response. The estimated costs to fulfill the above noted requests have been calculated as set forth below: 30 pages x 2 minutes labor per page = 60 minutes (1 hour) 1519 minutes BWC footage x 3 minutes labor per minute of footage = 4,557 minutes (75.95 hours) Combined hours labor = 76.95 hours 76.95 hours @ $25.00 per hour = $1,923.75 In its supplemental response on January 14, 2026, the City clarified that it “neglected to include the two free hours that Mr. Webb is entitled to under the Public Records Law,” and revised its total fee estimate to $1,873.75. In a further supplemental response on January 27, 2026, the City clarified its anticipated redactions as follows: 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. While I anticipate the vast majority of redactions to these records to be made under Exemptions (c) and (f), the City still must segregate and redact the records under Exemption (a) statutes specifically M.G.L. c. 41 § 97D reports of domestic violence and M.G.L. c. 93H and 940 C.M.R. 27.00 personal information of residents of the Commonwealth, including social security numbers and drivers license numbers. Current Appeal In his appeal petitions, Mr. Webb argued that the City’s fee estimate is unreasonable and stated, “[c]ombining these requests obfuscates how much footage there is in response to each of them, and allows [the City] to assess a fee that may not be reasonably assessed for the requests individually.”

Michael Manning SPR26/0128; SPR26/0129 Page 5 January 28, 2026 Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Mr. Webb is reminded that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. Consequently, I find that in light of the similarity of the two requests submitted by Mr. Webb on December 27, 2025, these requests may be combined for purposes of providing this fee estimate. However, where the requests made on December 28, 2025 seek records relating to three separate events on three distinct dates, it is unclear how the City may also combine and include the three requests submitted on December 28, 2025 for the purposes of providing this fee estimate. Consequently, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $1,873.75 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Webb and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Webb may wish to narrow his requests. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of 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 the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the requests would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Webb with a response to the requests, 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0128; SPR26/0129 Page 6 January 28, 2026 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 (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb