Stokes, Brandon v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20261497)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1497 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: On April 21, 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, Brandon Stokes, of 7NEWS WHDH-TV. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 6, 2026, Mr. Stokes requested, “Worcester Police bodycam video of officers stopping these street takeovers the weekend of 4/4 and 4/5.” 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 municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious 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

Brandon Stokes SPR26/1497 Page 2 April 27, 2026 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 twenty-five business days…” In support of its request the City provides the following information: The completion of this request will involve the review and redaction of responsive footage 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 753 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 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 25 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

Brandon Stokes SPR26/1497 Page 3 April 27, 2026 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, 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 responsive footage constituting intimate details of a highly personal nature of individuals who are identified in the recordings. This would include information such as private telephone numbers and email addresses that an Officer’s body worn camera footage may capture. The City will also redact any medical information that appears in the responsive records. Further it is my understanding that some of the body-worn camera videos may capture juveniles who were present during the events in question. To extent

Brandon Stokes SPR26/1497 Page 4 April 27, 2026 that a redaction of a juveniles’ identity is not required by law pursuant to M.G. L. c. 41, § 98F and/or M.G.L. c. 119, § 60A, given the increased expectation of privacy afforded to juveniles, the City would redact any identifying information of persons under the age of 18 under the second clause of Exemption (c). 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 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. 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the City has established good cause for a time extension of 25 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. Stokes 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: Brandon Stokes