Glassman, Rita v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260177)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0177 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: On January 20, 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, it is my understanding that the City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Rita Glassman, of Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). From January 5, 2026 to January 19, 2026, Ms. Glassman made the following requests: Request I On January 5, 2026, Ms. Glassman sought “copies of Police Department reports, in electronic format, relating to any motor vehicle accidents that occurred within the city from December 29, 2025 through January 4, 2026. I would request that the reports include the un- redacted operator supplied names and addresses of all involved drivers.” It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number P082413-010526. Request II On January 12, 2026, Ms. Glassman sought “all copies of Police Department reports, in electronic format, relating to any motor vehicle accidents that occurred within the city from January 5, 2026 through January 11, 2026.” It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number P082773- 011226. 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 SPR26/0177 Page 2 January 27, 2026 Request III On January 19, 2026, Ms. Glassman sought “all copies of Police Department reports, in electronic format, relating to any motor vehicle accidents that occurred within the city from January 12, 2026 through January 18, 2026.” It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number P083187-011926. 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 approximately 300 potentially

Michael Manning SPR26/0177 Page 3 January 27, 2026 responsive reports to this request. The [completion] of this request will involve the review and redaction of the responsive reports to protect exempt information. In the time span that these requests were placed the City has received 848 public records request[s]. It is likely that a portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the City’s Law Department. Further as noted in the petition to assess fees, the City asserts that these requests have been placed for a commercial purpose. Consequently, there is little to no public interest served by expeditious disclosure of these records to Ms. Glassman and her employer. 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 and the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, in conjunction with the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension and the efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current requests, 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). 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.

Michael Manning SPR26/0177 Page 4 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). Commercial Purpose In its petition, the City argues that the requests are made for a commercial purpose, and provides the following information in support of its argument: In addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under any applicable statutes pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the City requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction not required by law. In support of this request, the City asserts that these requests have been placed for a commercial purpose. Ms. Glassman identifies herself as an employee of Jeffery Glassman Injury Lawyers. According to the firm’s website… the firm’s practice areas include: Car Accidents, Bicycle Accidents, Truck Accidents, Pedestrian Accidents and Motorcycle Accidents. Where these requests seek records related to the firm’s practice areas and do not appear to seek records relating to [a] specific client or incident, it is likely that the firm will use the information gleaned from the responsive records to solicit potential clients. Further it appears that Ms. Glassman’s requests are not limited to the City of Worcester, in an April 9, 2025 determination the Supervisor of Records found that a similar request placed with the Melrose Police Department met the statutory definition of “commercial purpose”. See SPR25/0961 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 9, 2025). In light of the foregoing, the City respectfully requests that the Supervisor find that Ms. Glassman’s January 5th, January 12thand January 19th requests were placed for a commercial purpose and accordingly grant this petition.

Michael Manning SPR26/0177 Page 5 January 27, 2026 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). Based on the information provided in the City’s petition, it is my understanding that the requests made by Ms. Glassman meet the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Based on the City’s petition and my finding that the requests are for a commercial purpose, I approve the City’s petition to assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, where the requests are for a commercial purpose, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please be advised, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce the record or records unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). This office encourages Ms. Glassman 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). Please note, Ms. Glassman 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).

Michael Manning SPR26/0177 Page 6 January 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rita Glassman Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq.