Webb, David v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260272)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0272 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester Law Department 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: On January 27, 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 January 12, 2026, Mr. Webb requested “Wagon footage from the arrest of [a named individual].” Also on January 12, 2026, Mr. Webb referred to an earlier request and requested “…the remaining responsive records to this request from the other officers who did enable their BWC in accordance with WPD policy and procedure 403.” I understand the City assigned reference numbers P081037-120525 and P080546-112525 to these requests, respectively. 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; 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 SPR26/0272 Page 2 February 3, 2026 (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 20 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 114 minutes of footage that is responsive to these requests. The competition [sic] of this request will involve the review and redaction of the responsive footage to protect exempt information. In the time span since these requests were placed the City has received 831 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 the responsive 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 search for, collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, and 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 20 business days.

Michael Manning SPR26/0272 Page 3 February 3, 2026 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 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 SPR26/0272 Page 4 February 3, 2026 Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the City states the following in support of its request to assess fees: 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 under Exemptions (c) and (f). Under Exemption (c), the City would redact any footage 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. The City must also examine the responsive footage to ensure that no footage provided to the requestor contains confidential investigative techniques used by the Worcester Police Department during the events in question. A copy of the City’s fee estimate has been enclosed with this petition as have copies of the requests at issue. 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. 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 SPR26/0272 Page 5 February 3, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb