Galvin considering ballot question on public records
If lawmakers don't attempt to reform the state's public records law by this August, Secretary of State William Galvin said he is willing to press ahead with a ballot initiative.
"That's what I'm looking at," Galvin said Tuesday after testifying in support of proposed legislation that advocates say will significantly overhaul the public records law for the first time since 1973.
"I am very anxious to see legislation pass this year," Galvin, who oversees elections and his office's division of public records, told members of the Legislature's Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight.
Galvin also noted the Legislature has exempted itself from any public records law. In the area of employment, in terms of compensation and contracts made by the Legislature, "I don't think there's a justification for continuing that," he said.
But when it comes to legislative deliberations, the exemption should stand, he added. "There has to be some process that allows for a give and take among the legislative members when deliberating the fate of bills," Galvin, a former House lawmaker himself, said.
Galvin said he spoke to newspaper editorial boards last year, when he was up for reelection, about a potential referendum.
"I don't mean to criticize them unfairly, but I think I have to state the facts: The Legislature has year after year failed to take action on my legislation and other legislation to change the public records law," Galvin told reporters.
The ballot referendum is not a "precise" way to change the law, but it's an alternative and something he's "actively considering," he said to lawmakers. "I prefer to see the Legislature do it," he added.
The first deadline in the process to place an initiative on the 2016 ballot is Aug. 5, 2015. Organizers must submit ballot language and signatures from 10 voters to the attorney general's office.
Galvin said he met with Rep. Peter Kocot, the chair of the State Administration Committee and a sponsor of one of the records reform bills, before the committee hearing on Tuesday. Galvin said he was encouraged by "some very candid conversations" with Kocot (D-Northampton).
Attorney General Maura Healey's view on the public records is "very refreshing," Galvin added.
"I think we can do this, but if this fails, then the only alternative left is -- if there is no legislative action, which there has not been now for many years -- then I think the only alternative would be a ballot question," Galvin said.
The "greatest consensus" appears to be in the area of enforcing the public records law, Galvin told lawmakers. Currently, if his office decides a record should be made public, Galvin can refer the matter to the state attorney general or a local district attorney, and Galvin said that has "not been an effective way" in the past.
"The system we now have I think is well-intentioned but has not kept pace with the times," Galvin said.
Galvin suggested setting up a "clear line" of authority, such as the attorney general designating an office of enforcement to specifically deal with public records or having Galvin's supervisor of public records have the right to enforce their own decision.
There are likely restrictions to what can be put on the ballot, and lifting the exemption on the Legislature and the state courts could be an issue, Galvin acknowledged.
Galvin (D-Brighton) said party affiliation was not a factor in a lack of transparency on Beacon Hill. "Republicans like to hide records just as much as Democrats," Galvin said.
Govs. William Weld and Deval Patrick both have cited a Supreme Judicial Court ruling from the 1990s in attempting to keep records from reporters.
Galvin also defended his decision last year to charge David D'Arcangelo, his Republican opponent, thousands of dollars for records on Galvin's public service ad spending. D'Arcangelo asked for 20 years of records and didn't want to narrow the scope of his request, Galvin told reporters.
Transparency advocates, reporters and other groups followed Galvin in testimony to the committee, pushing for two bills (H 277 and S 1676). Rep. Kocot is behind the House bill, while Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) is the sponsor of the Senate bill.
Sixteen groups, ranging from Clean Water Action to the Berkshire Environmental Action Team and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, also said they supported the two bills.
"Organizations, reporters, watchdogs, and regular citizens who wish to see public documents are frequently unable to do so, prevented by outright denials, excessive charges, records in useless formats, and long delays in which the requested records never materialize or do so in an untimely manner," they wrote.
Scott Allen, who works for the Boston Globe special investigative unit known as the Spotlight Team, said the regional news outlet has the resources to pay for or fight against the price tags some agencies and state organizations attach to releasing public records.
But others do not, he said, pointing to a central Massachusetts blogger who asked the State Police for information on a murder investigation from 1951. The blogger was told he could not have the records, despite the leading suspect being dead for decades, because the investigation was still "active," according to Allen.
"What you see is people not taking this law seriously. They treat it as a nuisance at best," Allen said.
According to Pam Wilmot, the executive director of the government watchdog Common Cause Massachusetts, the bills have provisions that would reduce the cost of copying public records and allow courts to award attorneys' fees if a litigant is successful in challenging a denied request for public records.
Forty-six states allow for the awarding of attorneys' fees; Massachusetts, Michigan, South Dakota and Wyoming do not, Wilmot said.
Bob Ambrogi, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, called the existing law "skewed against enforcement," with public officials facing few if any consequences for withholding public records.
"These bills would reverse that equation," he said.
Paul Craney, the executive director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a conservative advocacy group, said public record reform could go further.
Tuesday's hearing, he noted, was held in a room without wireless internet, with limited seating and no live stream of the hearing.
"We're having a hearing on transparency and the hearing itself is not transparent. That needs to be addressed as well," he said in an interview.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments