BOSTON — Obtaining public records in Massachusetts can be more painful than heading to the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
It can take months before records requests are handled, and individuals and organizations can pay a pretty penny for the documents.
That can soon change.
Next week House and Senate legislators are expected to take up a sweeping overhaul of the state’s public-records law, which several watchdog groups have called the weakest in the nation.
Area legislators on both sides of the aisle are hoping to pass a reform bill before summer recess begins on July 31.
“There has to be more transparency,” said Rep. Sheila Harrington, R-Groton. “Private citizens and media need to be able to get documents they need without a firestorm to get there.
“I totally support the legislation,” she added. “I feel like it’s been long overdue.”
The bill would increase the fines for failing to provide public records. Requesters denied public information would be able to sue for relief in court; if found to be wrongfully denied the records, the requester would receive lawyers’ fees from the municipal or state agency violating the law.
In addition, the legislation would place a cap on fees agencies can charge for records; the copying fees could not exceed 5 cents a copy. Today, some agencies are charging more than 20 cents a copy, which can be a financial burden, according to Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton.
“The public has become very frustrated with the obstacles to getting public information at Town Hall and from state agencies,” said Eldridge, a co-petitioner on the Senate version of the public-records bill. “This legislation has not been updated since 1973, so it’s long overdue to make changes in the 21st century.
“We’re arguably one of the most high-tech states in the country but have one of the worst public-records laws,” said Eldridge. “This bill would certainly leap us ahead in the rankings.”
According to a survey conducted by Muckrock, a Boston news group that helps citizens obtain government documents, Massachusetts ranks 49th among the 50 states in the time it took state agencies to answer public-records requests.
Like Eldridge, Billerica Republican Rep. Marc Lombardo and Westford Democrat Rep. James Arciero agreed that the existing law needs improvement.
“I support anything to make government more transparent and open,” Lombardo said. “We need these much-needed reforms, and it’s great to see how those on opposite sides of the political spectrum support this.”
Also, Lowell Democrat Sen. Eileen Donoghue said access to public records shouldn’t be thwarted by cost delays or objections that are not justified.
“This puts teeth into frivolous objections, which should have consequences,” Donoghue said. “Consequences give government more pause to think about whether it’s a legitimate objection or not. If it’s not, then the information should be open to the public.”
Rep. Peter Kocot, a Northampton Democrat and House chairman of the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, said on Tuesday he expected a vote on the bill next week.
A records-law rewrite is supported by such groups as the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Common Cause and the New England First Amendment Center. It’s also supported by the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, whose member papers account for the bulk of records requests; newspapers around the state have editorialized in support.
One municipal lobbying group, Massachusetts Municipal Association, has objected to aspects of the bill they say will impose a burden on local governments.
MMA’s executive director, Geoff Beckwith, said the association is not opposed to updating the public-records law; however, he said it is concerned about the financial burden it could place on cities and towns to comply with the law.
“The legislation’s initial draft would have led to significant unfunded mandates on cities and towns, and communities would have been forced to shift resources away from programs and services,” Beckwith said. “So we’re trying to make progress on the bill, and make it more balanced.
“It does feel like we’re on a treadmill turned up to max speed right now as we try to keep up with the Legislature’s process,” he added. “We hope that if they vote next week, it’s workable for our cities and towns.”
Kocot said he had a “very productive” meeting the MMA and anticipates more concrete recommendations from it.
Not all city and town leaders agree the bill would overburden municipalities. Lowell City Manager Kevin Murphy said he could not disagree more with the MMA on this issue.
“Town and city governments need to be transparent and release records that should be available to the public,” Murphy said. “Ever since I’ve become city manager, we’ve always provided documents because the residents and media are entitled to them.
“It’s our responsibility to provide them,” he added. “I have no problem with the proposed legislation.”
Under Kocot’s bill, each municipality would have to designate an employee to be the lead person on handling requests for public documents.
Chelmsford Town Manager Paul Cohen said he would welcome an update to the law, but remains concerned about expansive requests. For instance, he said if a resident asks for all complaints made against a specific town employee over the last decade, then that’s “abusing the standard to harass or make life difficult for public officials to provide records.”
Cohen said, “It’s not as simple as pressing a button on a computer, so it can be tough for the town to acquire that information. Towns should not be withholding any records that should be public, but we don’t have unlimited staffing and time. We’re hoping the legislation has a good outcome that’s reasonable for everybody.”
The proposed legislation would also set a 15-day deadline for public-records compliance, at which point public entities would need to completely fulfill every records request.
Sen. Kenneth Donnelly, D-Arlington, who represents Billerica, admits that some people may abuse public-records requests, but he’s confident legislation can be hammered out so municipalities will not be overburdened.
“It’s about time to get this done,” Donnelly said. “There are enough people who have legitimate concerns about public records. It would be a shame if we don’t get this done before the recess.”
Information from the State House News Service was used in this report.
Follow Rick Sobey on Twitter and Tout @rsobeyLSun.
