In the last week of the formal legislative session, S.3200 (a bill superseding Ballot Question 1 – Expanding the Public Records Law) passed the Senate 34-6, not including amendments 7 and 9, which would have included legislator communications as public records and strengthened the judicial review sections, were not adopted.
While Question 1 will still be on the ballot, this bill would supersede the will of the voters by providing access to only 19 types of records (which are largely already public.)
More than 90,000 Massachusetts residents signed their name for the chance to apply existing public records law to the Legislature and the Governor’s office. We should have the right to decide that at the ballot, not have that choice made for us.
Resources:
- Act on Mass S.3200 Fact Sheet
- See how your senator voted
- 7/29 AoM Action Alert
- Nice try, but Senate transparency bill misses the mark – The Boston Globe Editorial Board
Actions:
Every Wednesday at 12:00pm and 7:00pm, Act on Mass hosts a quick legislator phone-a-thon. During the phone-a-thon, staff and volunteers will call their senators together, share tips and encouragement, and debrief afterward. These calls are a space where constituents can build power alongside others, making the process easier, more supportive, and more impactful. Register here.
Can’t make it on Wednesdays but still want to call? here is a fact sheet on the bill and sample scripts:
Senator Voted YES:
Hello, my name is [NAME] and I am one of your constituents in [NEIGHBORHOOD].
I saw that you voted in favor of S.3200 last Thursday, and I am extremely concerned about the language in this bill and the Senate moving about public records law to address its own compliance. I was also very disappointed that Senator Keenan’s amendments 7 and 9 were not adopted.
While I still plan to vote YES on Question 1 this fall, I feel that both my vote and the hundreds of hours volunteers dedicated to collecting 190,000 signatures for this question will be made moot by your yes vote.
Also, given that the majority of the 19 types of records included in the bill are already public, I would be very interested to hear from your office how this bill substantively improves transparency and public access to records.
(Only include if they have signed the Every District Accountable Pledge)
And lastly, I see that you have signed the Every District Accountable, Good Government for Mass pledge. I was very excited to see your name on the list of sign-ons, and thus feel the need to hold you accountable to position 5: Uphold the will of the voters on the following ballot initiatives: Public Records and Same Day Voter Registration. This bill negates the will of the voters before they have even had a chance to decide on public records access. Your vote on this bill makes me question the other 4 commitments you have made to your constituents as well.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Senator voted NO:
Hello, my name is [NAME] and I am one of your constituents in [NEIGHBORHOOD].
I saw that you voted ‘no’ on S.3200 last week, and I just wanted to reach out and thank you for taking a stand on this issue. I am very concerned about the language in this bill, particularly its potential to supersede the will of the voters on ballot Question 1. I feel that the legislature should be subject to the same public records law as other government entities in the state, including access to state house communications.
Thank you for your commitment to our district. I will be closely following the bill that comes out of joint committee.
Email your Senator to either thank our Senators for their ‘no’ vote, or let them know what their ‘yes’ vote means for Question 1.
Further context:
Just as a reminder, Massachusetts is currently the only state in the entire country in which our legislature, judiciary, and Governor’s office exempt themselves from public records law. The common-sense transparency standards that are followed by municipal workers, city councilors, and most state employees simply do not apply to those who write, enforce, and adjudicate our laws. Just this year, the Society of Professional Journalists granted Massachusetts its “Black Hole Award,” recognizing the state’s “troubling lack of transparency and disregard for the public’s right to know,” in no small part due to our dismal public records regime.
Question 1: Expanding the Public Records Law is designed to shine some sunlight on that “black hole.” It would simply apply the state’s existing public records law to the Legislature and Governor’s office, with some key exemptions for sensitive constituent information and developing policy positions.
For those who will remember, S.3200 is the Senate version of the House’s “transparency” bill which we mobilized against in June.
Like the House version, S.3200 includes language that would supersede the impact of the proposed ballot question, by “solely” allowing access to limited list of 19 types of records included in this bill. The kicker is, most of those records are already public! But that’s not the only issue with this bill. If enacted, S.3200 would also:
- Create an entirely separate public records system for the Legislature, overseen by a “legislative records officer” appointed by legislative leadership.
- Exempt legislators’ communications, including emails with lobbyists and between legislators.
- Make it more difficult for record seekers to dispute records denials
One of the main strengths of public records law is that the public gets to decide what records are interesting to us. More than 90,000 Massachusetts residents signed their name for the chance to apply existing public records law to the Legislature and the Governor’s office. We should have the right to decide that at the ballot, not have that choice made for us.
At the federal level, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been one of the primary ways journalists, advocates, and the public have uncovered the machinations of the Trump administration. We deserve the same here in Massachusetts. In a healthy democracy, the public, not government officials, decide what records deserve scrutiny.