Massachusetts voters will be deciding on a government transparency ballot initiative in November while two hotly contested bills, also on transparency, sit in the Legislature.
Question 1 advocates are fighting for more government transparency and are criticizing the Legislature for not following the will of the people, while House and Senate leaders defend their efforts.
Question 1 would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the state public records law.
The House-passed government transparency bill, currently in the conference committee, would give the state auditor access to the Legislature’s fiscal records, but would prevent the auditor from taking audit-related disputes to court. Both branches have their financial records audited by professional firms.
The Senate version would create a formal process for requesting legislative records, but stops short of applying the existing public records law to the Legislature. Instead, it establishes a separate and more limited system for lawmakers, largely covering categories of records already publicly available and setting out how the public may request them.
Massachusetts is the only state where the Office of the Governor, the Legislature and the judiciary are exempt from public records law.
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who is leading the effort to pass Question 1, said that it is unacceptable that Massachusetts has the least transparent government in the nation.
“I decided to lead the effort to pass Question 1 because Massachusetts deserves a government that is transparent and open and accessible to its residents,” DiZoglio said.
She criticized legislators who blocked her ability to audit the Legislature based on the 2024 ballot initiative, which won 72% of the vote. The Office of State Auditor is suing the Legislature to get them to comply.
“We really need to remind these powerful politicians that the Constitution is there to protect the people, not the politicians,” DiZoglio said.
DiZoglio argues that both the House and Senate bills on government transparency actually have the opposite effect, noting a closed door conference committee of three members from each branch have yet to act on a compromise measure since the Legislature ended formal sessions in July.
“It’s my belief that they are holding back on sending the bills that they voted for to the governor’s desk until after the election, so that they can escape the public’s scrutiny over their decision to overturn the will of the people,” DiZoglio said.
She argues that the governor and state Legislature should not be setting up different rules for themselves to follow.
“Transparency and accountability are paramount in a democratic government to make sure that politicians do not get out of control and abuse their power by being able to keep secret how they are conducting people’s business,” DiZoglio said.
Whatever bill emerges from the conference committee would be sent to Gov. Maura Healey, who recently said that she would veto any legislation that would weaken Question 1.
“Governor Healey voluntarily complies with the public records law and supports Question 1 to subject the Governor’s Office and the Legislature to the public records law, with appropriate exemptions,” according to an email statement from a spokesperson.
In response, DiZoglio said she was glad to hear that Healey committed to vetoing any legislation that mitigates the transparency language in Question 1, but still wants the governor to commit to also acting on the voter-approved audit.
“Now we just need Madam Governor to commit to vetoing any legislation that would mitigate the 72% audit law you voted for. A veto of both will put the Legislature in a very uncomfortable position of having to weigh an override of their Democratic governor’s position in support of the people.”
Because the audit was approved by voters, it became law 30 days after passage and is no longer subject to a gubernatorial veto. Only the Legislature has the authority to amend, repeal – or in this instance – ignore the law.
Sen. Cindy Friedman, D-Arlington, co-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions, said that she supports increasing access to the records in the Legislature, but prefers the language of the government transparency bill more than the ballot question.
“As laid out in the Committee’s majority report [declining to approve Question 1], the law must include clear protections of constituent communications and constitutional duties, which as written the ballot question does not provide,” Friedman said in an email statement.
“The Senate and the House of Representatives both passed versions of public records bills currently in conference committee which will improve access while preserving the confidentiality and trust of residents to contact their legislators and seek services and — most importantly — ensure that these laws do not violate our Constitution.”
Senate President Karen Spilka also stands by the bill passed by her branch.
“The bill is stronger, clearer, and holds the Legislature more accountable than Question 1, and has clear rules, a tested review process, and real protections for sensitive information, all of which are absent from the ballot measure,” Spilka said in an email statement.
“Speculating about what happens after an election gets ahead of the voters. Right now, the Senate is focused on working with its House colleagues to deliver the transparency that voters deserve.”
House Speaker Ronald Mariano argues that the Legislature is working hard to ensure a more transparent state government.
“The Legislature is actively working to achieve the same goal as the ballot question — to expand and guarantee public access to legislative records,” according to an email statement. “The bill currently before the conference committee would advance that objective while addressing the constitutional considerations necessary to ensure that the reforms can withstand scrutiny and provide a durable framework for greater transparency.”
Jonathan Cohn, the policy director for Progressive Mass, said that his organization supports Question 1, saying the main arguments for a yes vote are that it will hold people in elected office accountable to the public.
“The public should have the ability to find out what decisions are being made in our name and how they’re being made,” Cohn said.
Cohn also questions why local elected officials are subjected to public records law while state officials are not.
“It’s a strange double standard, and double standards just tend to be bad in politics,” Cohn said.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.