Beacon Hill — the Massachusetts State House — can seem opaque to the average Bay Stater. To address this concern, there are several measures being debated by political activists to increase transparency for the benefit of the public.
These proposals must be seriously concerned by elected legislators whose primary job is to serve the public and not their own interests.
State Rep. Jonathan Hecht, a Democrat from Watertown, proposed to extend the amount of time between when a bill is filed and when it can be voted on.
Currently, after 24 hours, a bill could be filed and voted on before the public is even aware of the legislature. Hecht proposed to extend the time to 72 hours, which would give the public more time to comment. Unfortunately, the House debated and rejected the measure.
Another measure that should be addressed is the state’s public records law. On paper, the law grants the public access to documents created or received by “any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth.”
However, this is far from reality. Based on a 1997 court ruling — Lambert v. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council — the state’s public records law does not explicitly include the Legislature, the judiciary or the governorship.
Over the years, governors have used this loophole to claim an exemption to what seems like common-sense transparency. The legislature must consider amending the current law so that all public governing bodies are required to release all documents that don’t contain excessively sensitive private information.
Currently, politicians, candidates and policymakers are required to file “statements of financial interests.” According to WBUR, the statements include information about “salaries, business holdings, government securities, stocks, bonds, other financial investments, real estate holdings, and mortgages as well as gifts, honoraria, and reimbursements valued at more than $100.”
These statements are available online for those who register with the state — a process that requires a name, phone number, email address and ID. This is a barrier to transparency without reason and inhibits access that every resident of the Commonwealth ought to have.
The clearest example of Beacon Hall’s cloudiness, though, is the legislature’s exemption from the open meeting law. This law requires that public institutions, such as boards of selectmen and school committees, hold meetings that are open to the public.
It is hypocritical for public officials, elected by the public, to operate out of the public’s eye. If local government institutions are mandated to be open to the public, why isn’t Beacon Hill?
Beacon Hill works for all of Massachusetts. If it is a truly representative body, it would strive to be as open as possible to the residents of which it serves.
