Marino, Tom v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260624)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 2, 2026 SPR26/0624 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Manning: On February 24, 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, Tom Marino, of This Week in Worcester. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 7, 2026, Mr. Marino requested, “all video footage captured outside the Worcester Police Department in the area of the public parking lot and the lower lot where police vehicles are parked, the requested video should show both of these areas from 6 AM to *:30 AM on the following days: Jan. 9[;] Jan. 17[;] Jan. 23[;] Feb. 1[.]” 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; (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 SPR26/0624 Page 2 March 2, 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) 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 extension of thirty business days…” In support of its request the City provides the following information: The City estimates that there are approximately 50 hours of responsive recordings from 5 different cameras covering the area sought by Mr. Marino’s request. The completion of this request will involve the review and redaction of all of the responsive footage to protect exempt information. As noted in the petition to assess fees the City expects redactions to be made pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (n) of the Public Records Law. In the time span since this request was placed the City has received 912 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 footage. 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. 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).

Michael Manning SPR26/0624 Page 3 March 2, 2026 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). Current Petition In its petition, the City requests, “permission to charge for segregation and redaction pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (n) of the Public Records Law.” In support of its petition, the City provides the following information: In reviewing the challenges brought to light by this request, it has come to my

Michael Manning SPR26/0624 Page 4 March 2, 2026 attention that the Worcester Police Department’s parking lot is frequently used for child custody exchanges. The City considers any footage captured of such events to be intimate details of a highly personal nature as defined by the second clause of Exemption (c) especially when considering the increased privacy rights afforded to juveniles. Given that portions of the requested footage captures the entrance and exits of the Worcester Police Department, the City must review the footage for any security vulnerabilities that may be exposed should it be produced publicly. During its review of the footage City will use reasonable judgment to evaluate the factual and contextual support for redacting or withholding any portion of the footage that is likely to jeopardize the safety of the public or employees of the Worcester Police Department. In light of 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). 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. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Marino 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: Tom Marino