Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260190)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0190 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, David Webb. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 5, 2026, Mr. Webb requested “BWC for the two officers involved in the traffic stop of two black men January 4th, between 4pm and 6pm at the Nouria gas station at Cambridge and Southbridge st.” It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number #PO82402-010526. 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 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 SPR26/0190 Page 2 January 27, 2026 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 20 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The City estimates that there are approximately 75 minutes of body worn camera footage that is responsive to this request. The competition of this request will involve the review and redaction of the responsive footage to protect exempt information. In the time span since this request was placed the City has received 906 public records requests. It is likely that a portion of these additional requests may also require review and redaction by the City’s Law Department. Additionally, only a small subset of City employees within the City have the requisite knowledge and technological expertise to redact body-worn camera footage. Further as noted in the petition to assess fees, the City expects to make redactions to the responsive footage to protect exempt information. 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 twenty business days from receipt of payment of its fee estimate. I find that in light of the need to 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 20 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0190 Page 3 January 27, 2026 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 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).

Michael Manning SPR26/0190 Page 4 January 27, 2026 Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the City argues the following in support of its request 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 footage 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’s Law Department will also collaborate with the Worcester Police Department to determine if any portions of the footage is prejudicial to current or potential future law enforcement activity. Should any investigation related to the footage sought remain on-going, the City will redact portions of the footage that may reveal the course of the 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 20 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). 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).

Michael Manning SPR26/0190 Page 5 January 27, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq.