Governor Healey can’t stop lying about her record on public records
Governor Healey can’t stop lying about her record on public records
Healey continues to gaslight public about transparency while advocates again ask lawmakers to reduce secrecy in state government
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey on Thursday again falsely claimed that she has not invoked her office’s total immunity from the state’s public records law — even though she has used the privilege to deny journalists a wide range of documents, including emails, invoices, and more.
Healey’s latest attempt to gaslight her constituents comes as advocates are backing a bill that would apply the law to both the governor’s office and the Legislature, which is also immune.
Margery Eagan, cohost of the GBH program Boston Public Radio, asked Healey about a recent Axios article that catalogs many of the records requests the governor’s office has rejected since she was inaugurated in January.
“As you might imagine, I probably take issue with the characterization of our responses,” Healey said. She said that while she has the “right” to reject records requests for no reason, she does not do so.
“To the extent we withheld documents, they are documents that are exempt under the public records law,” Healey said. “Sometimes they’re because of attorney-client privilege or because there’s certain safety implications presented. Sometimes they’re within another exemption about deliberative process.”
The public records law requires local governments and state agencies to release records unless they fall within specific exemptions like the ones Healey mentioned. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found in its 1997 Lambert decision that the governor’s records are “not explicitly included in” the law.
In December, about two weeks before Healey was sworn in, she said on Boston Public Radio that she would not invoke this immunity. However, she quickly reversed herself after taking office by issuing a policy that cites Lambert and says the governor’s records “are not subject to the Massachusetts public records law.”
Contrary to Healey’s comments on Thursday, the policy says that her office will consider the governor’s “unique obligations” when deciding whether to reject requests instead of only relying on the exemptions specified in the statute.
In February, the Healey administration rejected a number of requests from the media, including a Mass Dump request for emails from the Charlie Baker administration. Healey’s office told the Dump that its policy of voluntarily releasing documents “does not apply retroactively to the records of previous administrations.” Healey’s office did not cite any of the exemptions listed in the law — it just cited Lambert.
That same month, Healey’s office used the same justification when it rejected WBUR’s requests for severance agreements and sexual harassment complaints from the last five years of the Baker administration. It also cited exemptions for internal personnel rules and privacy, but only for the harassment complaints.
Healey’s office, citing only Lambert, also rejected The Boston Globe’s request for call logs as well as emails and other correspondence with the leaders of the state Legislature, saying that releasing the records “would interfere with the governor’s necessary, regular activities and responsibilities.” The administration did provide the Globe with Healey’s calendar but redacted information dozens of times under an exemption for security-related documents like blueprints and schematics.
In July, Healey’s office rejected a Boston Herald request for receipts and invoices related to the governor’s state-funded trip to Ireland, citing the privacy exemption, the security exemption, the “unique obligations of the Office of the Governor,” and Lambert. The governor’s office provided a written statement detailing $83,000 in costs but refused to provide the actual documents.
During a March appearance on Boston Public Radio, Healey made a false claim similar to her remarks on Thursday.
“It’s also true that I stand by what I said and [sic] that I was not going to take a position that Lambert applies to everything, and I’m really trying to be consistent about that,” Healey said.
At the time, Healey press secretary Karissa Hand disputed that the governor’s comments were untruthful.
“Lambert is cited because it is still the law, but the governor has said she intends to voluntarily comply with public records law,” Hand said.
“Right now, the law doesn’t apply to me in terms of public records,” Healey said on Thursday. “We have produced, including my calendar, a lot more information than other administrations. It may not be everything that everyone wants at all times. But know that we are making calls and judgments that are really in the best interest of the administration of the state.”
However, no one outside Healey’s office is reviewing these decisions.
The state’s public records watchdog, Supervisor of Public Records Manza Arthur, declined to hear six appeals brought by journalists who were denied records by the Healey administration.
A spokesperson for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin, who is responsible for appointing the supervisor, said in February that Arthur is unable to order Healey’s office to release records when it cites Lambert.
If you’d like to keep The Mass Dump running, please consider offering your financial assistance, either by signing up for a paid subscription to this newsletter or sending me a tip via PayPal. Your support is crucial if you want to keep reading this kind of in-depth coverage of transparency in Massachusetts.
“You Just Don’t Know Where to Look”
At a recent legislative hearing on bills related to public records and public meetings, a woman accused Massachusetts Speaker of the House Ronald Mariano of making a dismissive comment when she shook his hand months earlier and “used that moment to urge more transparency.”
“His response was something like, ‘We have plenty of transparency, you just don’t know where to look,’” Judy Eskin told the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight on July 26. “Setting aside his rude tone and phrasing that blamed me for the problem, his words proved my point; I don’t know where to look because the governor and the Legislature refuse to provide legitimately requested documents.”
Massachusetts is one of only two states where the governor claims to be completely exempt from public records law and is the only state where the governor, Legislature, and courts all claim to be completely exempt, according to the Globe.
State law does not even require the Legislature to publish the votes of legislative committees or share copies of the written testimony submitted by the public-policy and special-interest groups lobbying lawmakers.
Eskin was one of several people who submitted written testimony in favor of a bill by Senator Becca Rausch that would apply the public records law to both the governor and the Legislature, according to copies of the testimony that the committee voluntarily released.
Eskin said she understands that compliance with the public records law “can be a cumbersome and challenging process” because her husband spent six years on the Andover School Committee. She said lawmakers have exempted themselves and the governor from this obligation because it “makes it easier to deliberate in private, without the messiness of involving the actual people who elected [them].”
Mariano did not respond to an email asking about his interaction with Eskin and whether he supports applying the public records law to the governor and the Legislature.
A spokesperson for Massachusetts Senate President Karen Spilka did not respond to a request for comment. In March, a spokesperson said Spilka supports making committee votes and written testimony public but declined to say whether Spilka supports applying the public records law to the governor and the Legislature.
“From agendas and emails to memoranda and receipts, the public has a right to monitor, observe, and understand how the public’s business is being conducted on their behalf, and with their tax dollars,” said Erin Leahy, executive director of the left-wing group Act on Mass. “This core tenet of democracy is critical in order to foster trust between government officials and the people they serve.”
She added: “Not only does [the] exception [for the governor and the Legislature] thwart constituents and advocates trying to understand the lawmaking process that affects their lives, it also stifles the power of the press to act as a check on governmental power.”
Another advocate, Lisan Mo, asked: “Why are you against this bill? If the answer is one you would not say aloud standing at a podium in front of your constituents, then I ask that you give yourself more time to reconsider your position, because this is democracy at stake.”
Galvin testified in support of a separate bill he drafted that would only apply the public records law to the governor.
Galvin said that the Lambert decision “has enabled the commonwealth’s highest office to withhold any and all documents relating to the day-to-day decision making on critical issues.”
He added: “Shielding such records from public scrutiny runs contrary to the very spirit of public records laws (which are founded upon the presumption that all records are public). It is perfectly reasonable to ask that the most powerful position in the state meet this basic principle.”
In January, Galvin told GBH that the Legislature is unlikely to open up its own records for public inspection any time soon.
“People in the Legislature have asked to do this through the years to various degrees, and all of them have failed,” he said.
Last session, the State Administration Committee used study orders to kill a version of Rausch’s bill and a bill by Senator Jamie Eldridge that would have applied the public records law to the Legislature.
If one of the pending bills were to make it out of committee, it would still need the support of Mariano and Spilka to go anywhere. And if the Legislature were to pass one of the bills, it would need a veto-proof supermajority or Healey’s signature to become law — and it’s unclear where the governor stands.
In 2022, during Healey’s run for governor, her campaign spokesperson told the State House News Service that she supported making the governor’s office subject to the law “in the interest of transparency and accountability.”
But Hand, Healey’s current spokesperson, declined to say whether the governor still supports doing so.
“The governor will review any legislation that reaches her desk,” Hand said on Thursday.
If you support transparency in state government, consider sending your state legislators an email or giving them a call — especially if they’re on the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight (whose members are listed here). You can look up your legislators and their contact information here. Rausch’s bill is S.2064.
You could also try sending your thoughts to Governor Healey’s office using the email address listed here.
If you missed it, check out the first episode of the new podcast — Lights Out Mass — that I’m hosting with Jeff Raymond. For future episodes, you can subscribe to this newsletter or find us on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. We’ll be tackling lots of transparency-related issues, including secrecy at the State House.
Jeff and I are planning to record our next episode — about virtual access to public meetings — this afternoon. It should be available on Wednesday.
That’s all for now!