Uke, Desmond v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260475)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 17, 2026 SPR26/0475 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: On February 10, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Worcester seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records as well as a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. 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, Desmond Uke. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 26, 2026, Mr. Uke requested: [B]ody camera and surveillance footage related to an incident involving [an identified individual] which occurred on or around June 16, 2025. … [A]ny available body cameras and dashcam footage of the arresting officer, including but not limited to the initial encounter, the arrest process, and any subsequent interactions from the Worcester Police Department, Massachusetts. Accompanying the footage, I am also requesting a copy of the case report to provide context and background information on the incident. Petition 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; 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 SPR26/0475 Page 2 February 17, 2026 (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) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the City requests “ [an additional 30 business days] to fulfill the above- mentioned requests.” In support of its request the City provides the following information: The City of Worcester seeks an extension of time to fulfill the above-mentioned requests. The City estimates that there are approximately 6 hours of responsive body worn camera recordings and 20 total pages of responsive reports. The competition of this request will involve the review and redaction of all of the responsive records to protect exempt information. As noted in the petition to assess fees the City expects redactions to be made pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c) and (f). In the time span since this request was placed the City has received 727 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 have the requisite knowledge and technological expertise to redact the responsive body worn camera recordings. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Michael Manning SPR26/0475 Page 3 February 17, 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 SPR26/0475 Page 4 February 17, 2026 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the City requests, “permission to charge for segregation and redaction…” In support of its petition, the City provides the following information: In addition to charging for segregation and redaction, the City requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f). Under Exemption (c), the City would redact any responsive material constituting intimate details of a highly personal nature of individuals who are identified in the recordings or reports. This would include information such as private telephone numbers that appear in the police reports in question or that an Officer’s body worn camera may capture. The City will also redact any medical information that appears in the responsive records. Under Exemption (f), the City will redact any footage or portion of the report or 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 responsive records are prejudicial to current or potential future law enforcement activity. Should any investigation remain on-going, the City will redact portions of the records 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 redact the responsive footage to ensure that portions of the footage that contain confidential investigative techniques used by the Worcester Police Department have been redacted. 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the City is seeking to charge an hourly rate of $35.00 per hour for this request. The City provides the following in support of its request to charge fees in excess of $25.00 per hour: This employee is the lowest paid individual capable of segregating and redacting the responsive body worn camera footage. The redaction of body worn camera footage involves frame by frame redaction of video and audio of exempt portions. The process of redacting body worn camera footage is technically demanding and requires specialized training in the Axon platform. The City’s Public Records Specialists have this specialized training and clearance to manage, redact, and secure body worn camera footage. Axon’s software allows for use sophisticated redaction software to allow for redactions of individuals or objects in motion and to limit redactions to a small area to maximize the segregable portions of

Michael Manning SPR26/0475 Page 5 February 17, 2026 responsive footage. As noted in the petition to assess fees for segregation and redaction, the City expects there to be numerous portions of the responsive footage that requires redaction pursuant to the Exemptions (a), (c) and (f). To allow an untrained staffer to redact the responsive footage would risk redactions being improperly applied and otherwise exempt material to be publicly disclosed. . . . Based on its petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive body worn camera records, the request for these records could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $35.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Consequently, I find the City may assess a fee limited to $35.00 per hour for segregation and redaction of the body worn camera records responsive to Mr. Uke’s request. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that 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 as described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction as well as assess a fee limited to $35.00 per hour to review the body worn camera records. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Uke 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: Desmond Uke