Meet the new gov, same as the old gov
Meet the new gov, same as the old gov
Despite promising to do things differently, Governor Healey’s public records policy is identical to her predecessors’
Before getting into today’s story, I want to mention that I was recently on The Weed Out podcast with Joanna Mae Boody and Spencer Fox Peterson. We discussed my investigation of an alleged police brutality incident in Berkshire County and how it demonstrates the lack of accountability for cops in Massachusetts. You can listen to the episode here.
Two weeks before taking office as governor of Massachusetts, Maura Healey promised that she would comply with the state’s public records law.
But just weeks after she was inaugurated, she reversed herself.
In December, Jim Braude, cohost of the GBH program Boston Public Radio, asked Healey if she would “confirm that [she] will not claim exemption from public record laws as governor.” She responded in the affirmative.
However, a new policy posted online last Monday says that Healey’s office is immune from the public records law under the Supreme Judicial Court’s 1997 Lambert ruling — the same decision past governors have cited to withhold records from the public.
“By law, records held by the Office of the Governor are not subject to the Massachusetts public records law,” the policy states.
The policy continues: “Previous administrations have, as a voluntary practice, considered and responded to public records requests on a case-by-case basis. Governor Healey intends to follow the public records law and provide more transparency to the Governor’s Office than ever before.”
The policy goes on to say that Healey’s office will consider “any unique obligations of the Governor’s Office” when deciding whether to release records.
The public records law includes exemptions for personal privacy, ongoing policy-making discussions, law-enforcement investigations, and other types of information. However, there is no “unique obligations” exemption.
The policy does not specify any of the “unique obligations” to which it is referring. Asked about the lack of an explanation, Healey press secretary Karissa Hand said: “As we learn from experience, if we have more guidance to share, we will do so.”
Hand said that the Healey administration will address records requests “on a case-by-case basis” — the same language the policy uses to describe the approach taken by past administrations.
On Tuesday, Braude asked Healey how her new policy was different from that of past governors.
“When it comes to the actual implementation, you’ll see some differences,” Healey said, although she did not identify any of those differences.
She added: “There may be certain instances where there are certain things that cannot be provided to the public, but I have assured and will continue to assure that I will be a governor who is going to be the most transparent that we’ve seen when it comes to the production of information.”
She concluded her answer, saying: “My position remains the same.”
Under the public records law, if people are denied access to records, they can appeal to the supervisor of public records, an official appointed by the secretary of the commonwealth.
Hand declined to say whether Healey is committed to complying with decisions if she disagrees with them.
No one has filed an appeal related to the governor’s office so far this year.
In Massachusetts, the governor’s office, the Legislature, and the judiciary are all completely exempt from the public records law. There are several bills currently before the Legislature aimed at addressing this problem.
A bill filed by Senator Michael Brady would apply the law to the governor’s office but would only take effect after Healey’s current term ends and would not apply to records created before then. The bill has the support of Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin.
Another bill filed by Senator Jamie Eldridge would apply the public records law to the governor and would apply to all records created since Healey took office. Eldridge’s bill also includes a number of changes to make the Legislature more transparent, like requiring the body to post committee votes online and provide copies of written testimony on request, but it would not apply the public records law to legislators.
Another bill filed by Senator Becca Rausch would apply the law to the governor’s office and Legislature and would not be limited to newly created records. The bill would also create two new exemptions. The first would apply to communications with constituents. The second would apply to documents related to policy-making discussions; it would be more expansive than the existing exemption but would only apply to the governor’s office and Legislature.
Asked if Healey supports any of these bills, Hand said: “The governor will review any legislation that reaches her desk.”
On Tuesday, Braude asked Healey if she intends to file her own legislation to subject her office to the public records law.
“I don’t think I need to file legislation,” Healey responded. “I think that I can just implement along the lines that I’ve articulated. And that’s what I’m going to do.”
With the new legislative session underway, now might be a good time to look up your legislators and urge them to support expanding the scope of the public records law.
If you’d like to read more reporting like this, please consider supporting my work financially, either by signing up for a paid subscription to this newsletter or sending me a tip via PayPal.
If you have any story ideas, let me know about them! You can email me at aquemere0@gmail.com or send me a direct message on Twitter or Mastodon.
Also, Bill Shaner wrote about about the similarities between the Worcester Police Department’s gang and vice units and the Memphis Police Department’s now-disbanded SCORPION unit implicated in the sadistic killing of Tyre Nichols. Make sure you read that piece here.
That’s all for now.