|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a healthy democracy, citizens have the right to know exactly what their government is doing — and not doing — on their behalf.
Massachusetts has a proud history of leading the nation in democratic reforms and its Legislature has recently adopted changes to the rules governing legislative activity that shine a light on the legislative process. From additional time for public committee notices to making committee votes public, the Legislature’s steps toward increased transparency should be applauded, but it must do better. Earning public trust in government institutions matters.
Massachusetts doesn’t have the most stellar track record when it comes to transparency. While residents have the right to request information under Chapter 66 of the General Laws, there’s no meaningful way to enforce the law if requests are ignored or denied. Frustrated citizens can file an appeal with the Supervisor of Records. The only problem is that the Supervisor of Records doesn’t have the authority to monitor or enforce compliance, which leaves too many records requests suspended in bureaucratic purgatory. Ultimately, the public’s only recourse is to go to court.
Moreover, agencies and municipalities have minimal resources or staff dedicated to fulfilling, monitoring, or investigating records requests. That translates to longer wait times for what should be a quick and straightforward process. And while fees associated with records requests are fairly reasonable, it’s easy to see how hourly costs can quickly add up.
And it isn’t only the public records process that can use a little more sunshine. A temporary law implemented during the pandemic that let cities and towns hold public meetings either remotely or in-person should be replaced with a reformed permanent version that allows hybrid meetings.
Few of us have the time or resources to attend such meetings in person. Ordinary people who are juggling work, kids, bills, grocery shopping, and doctors’ appointments shouldn’t be shut out from public conversations that impact their lives. Aging residents and those with disabilities also have the right to know exactly what their state and local government officials are up to.
It is in this spirit of boosting transparency that I have filed two bills: “An Act further regulating access to public records (H3301)” and “An Act to modernize participation in public meetings (H4831),” both of which are before the House Ways and Means Committee. The first would establish a public records commission that serves as a custodian of public information, secures citizen access to government records, and ensures compliance with the commonwealth’s public records law. The second bill would make it easier for commonwealth residents to access and participate in city, town, and state public meetings by making hybrid participation options permanent.
We have a real opportunity to leverage state resources and technology to drive democratic participation while securing public trust. The proposals have the support of groups like the ACLU of Massachusetts, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and the Massachusetts Newspapers Publishers Association.
As a recent editorial in The Harvard Press pointed out, “The case for the bill is straightforward … Accessibility isn’t a luxury.” The Republican’s editorial endorsing my bill is more blunt: “It is well past time for [the public records] law to grow some teeth.” Finally, Carey Goldberg in The Boston Globe, waxing poetic, agrees that “the idea of a public records law is beautiful.” Because transparency is one of the surest signs of democracy, and democracy is a beautiful thing.
As we take steps to increase freedom of information, we can learn a lot from other states. For example, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, and Maryland have established offices, boards, or commissions solely for the purpose of regulating and enforcing government compliance with public records laws.
Pennsylvania has taken a similar path to the one that I am proposing. Blasted for years for its weak public records laws, the state has taken serious steps to expand public access to information. One of the most meaningful changes was the creation of the independent Office of Open Records, established by the Right to Know Law and tasked with monitoring and ensuring public access to government records. If a record request is denied, instead of hiring an attorney and taking the state or local agency to court, citizens can appeal to the Office of Open Records, which can issue binding decisions.
While it’s encouraging to see other states make efforts to deepen public trust in government, it’s Massachusetts that should be leading the nation in reforms targeting transparency, freedom of information, and accountability. At a time when America’s faith in government institutions is rapidly eroding, the recent transparency discourse during Sunshine Week (March 15-21) is a reminder that public servants must embrace the hard, slow work of reversing that troubling trend. Like so many of the nation’s greatest democratic achievements, that transformation can start right here in Massachusetts.
State Representative Antonio F. D. Cabral represents the 13th Bristol District, New Bedford, and is chair of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight.
The Massachusetts Legislature exists in an opaque venue, devoid of any light shining upon their financial dealings between themselves.
Their resistance to an external audit of their financial dealings, approved by 72% of the voting public, has been joined by the MA Attorney General and members of the MA Supreme Judicial Court.
The Massachusetts Legislature needs to be “blinded by the light” of honest transparency.
Prior “favors” are being called in to obfuscate this audit. Fear of an audit probably means that documents are having an “Enron Ending”.
We don’t need Sunshine, we need Common Sense, when the residents of our state went to polls and overwhelming voted for an audit, our politicians should listen to their constituents, or get out of office.
Both of these proposed laws are positive efforts to increase voter knowledge and participation.
H4831 would allow cities and towns to hold hybrid public meetings which include both in-person and remote online attendance. This benefits those of us who are juggling work, kids, grocery shopping, etc, and older and disabled residents.
As an octogenarian, I definitely agree.
H3301 would improve access to public records. Pennsylvania is an example of what this bill would do: It expanded public access to information by the creation of the independent Office of Open Records. Citizens no longer have to hire an attorney if a record request is denied. They now can appeal to the Office of Open Records, which can issue binding decisions.
This makes sense to me.
H4831 and H3301 are now in the Ways and Means Committee at the State House. We should thank Representative Cabral for introducing these bills and we should support them. A link follows for those who wish to contact members of Ways and Means.
https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Detail/H34
Your welcome to your opinion and it is no surprise that you would support bills like this and thank Tony Cabral. The bills are nothing more than smoke screens trying to take the voter’s attention away from more important issues, like the audit, high energy costs, reduction in state aid, and the reckless spending in this state. For politicians like Rep. Cabral it is time to step down, they have spent way to long in office, and the state and our city deserve new leadership and a better vision for our future.