Fixing state’s public records law

Last week, an important hearing was held on Beacon Hill on bills designed to strengthen the state’s limited and poorly-enforced public records law.

One bill, filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, seeks to address inherent weaknesses in the law. If passed, the bill would require each public agency to designate a person to handle public records requests, allow for electronic records to be made available, better define “reasonable fee” for accessing public records, and require the public agency to pay for plaintiff’s attorney fees if the agency loses a challenge in court.

It’s a start, but it doesn’t go far enough.

The state’s public records law has been largely untouched since 1973, yet its greatest shortcomings aren’t addressed in the bill. Under current law, the secretary of state’s office serves as the supervisor of records. If a public agency fails to comply with a public records request, an appeal may be made to the supervisor, but Secretary of State William Galvin has not been as strong an advocate for openness as we’d like. The Boston Globe reported last year that Galvin ruled in favor of the public’s right to know in only 27 percent of the cases.

Galvin now interprets the law so narrowly that Massachusetts local and State Police are able to arrest anyone and choose to keep the arrest report and mug shot from the public. And in those cases where Galvin said he erred on the side of more disclosure not less, he claims then-Attorney General Martha Coakley essentially ignored his requests to enforce the law. So he stopped asking. Coakley denies the accusation, and current Attorney General Maura Healey has said she would err on the side of more disclosure.

Yet enforcement should not be dependent on the interpretation and/or whims of those who hold office, but on the law itself.

What’s more, the bill before the Legislature doesn’t address the fact that the Legislature itself is exempt from the public records law. True reform would include the Legislature, governor and judiciary in the public records law.

Galvin testified last week in favor of greater public access to public records, and repeated his claim that he is “actively considering” putting a question on the 2016 ballot forcing significant reforms. But vague threats won’t do the job. If he’s serious, Galvin will draft specific language that gives legislators and advocates a clear idea of his alternative to Eldridge’s bill and to the status quo.

Recent history shows ballot questions can sometimes convince legislative leaders to let reform bills move forward. If reform stalls in the Legislature, proponents can put the issue in the hands of voters.

Massachusetts has already waited too long to update its public records law. Either the Legislature must get serious about reform, or the issue should be brought directly to the electorate.