Thursday, February 11, 2016

Senate Approves Overhaul Of Massachusetts Public Records Law

Massachusetts Senate passes public records reform

 
on February 04, 2016 at 4:20 PM, updated February 04, 2016 at 4:24 PM
4 shares
The Massachusetts Senate on Thursday passed an overhaul of the state's public records law unanimously after several hours of debate.

"This bill strengthens our public records law to improve access and make the process of requesting records simple, clear and fair," said State Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, chairwoman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Massachusetts' public records law has not been updated since 1973. It is notoriously weak, with public agencies routinely ignoring requests or charging large amounts of money to fulfill a request.
The House passed a public records reform bill in November, and the Senate released its own version of the bill last week. The bill will now go to a committee of House-Senate negotiators to hammer out a final compromise.

The bill has drawn significant attention from open government groups, who advocate for more transparent government, but also from municipalities worried about the burden the law will place on city and town workers.

State Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem, said the bill "strikes the right balance to make sure cities, towns and public entities have the time they need to produce public records, but make sure there are not unnecessary barriers to access."

The bill would change the current 10-day time frame for responding to a request to 15 days and would give municipalities the ability to ask for an extension.

It requires that electronic records be provided electronically. It requires municipalities to designate a particular point person for records requests. It sets fee guidelines for copies and labor.

If a court finds that a public agency, acting in bad faith, denied access to records, the bill would let a judge award the requester attorneys' fees and impose a penalty on the public entity. The penalty fee would go to a fund dedicated to helping municipalities improve their information technology.

"The bill ... moves our public records law into the 21st century," Spilka said.

State Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, noted that the fee limits - 5 cents a page down from 20 to 50 cents per page, and $25 an hour for labor - are particularly important, in light of several egregious cases. In one, the state police asked the Boston Globe to pay $40,000 for a spreadsheet containing a list of previous public records requests. A Somerville news blog was charged $200,000 for information from the city about parking tickets and citizen complaints.


Lawmakers debated around 50 amendments throughout the afternoon. Among those that were adopted were amendments making the MBTA pension fund subject to the public records law; requiring notification within 10 days when a record is being withheld; requiring electronic submission of public documents to an agency; and establishing guidelines for the physical storage of public records.

Senators rejected proposals to require the Legislature to appropriate money for small towns to pay a public records officer; to cap the fees entirely rather than allowing an approval process for higher fees; to allow attorneys' fees when records are turned over on the eve of a trial; and to award the government attorneys' fees from requesters.

Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said currently, Massachusetts is one of only three states that do not award attorney's fees when government ignores a public records request.
"Absent any enforcement mechanism whatsoever, the public records law in Massachusetts is meaningless," Rose said. The bill, she said, provides an enforcement mechanism.

 

Senate Approves Overhaul Of Massachusetts Public Records Law

 Updated February 5, 2016, 5:40 am
By Bob Salsberg, The Associated Press

BOSTON Supporters of a bill that would overhaul the state’s public records law said Thursday’s 35-0 vote in the Massachusetts Senate would provide a smoother path for citizens and journalists seeking to access government documents.

The bill establishes new timetables for state agencies and municipalities to comply with public records requests. It also sets limits on fees charged for public records and would reimburse legal fees to people who successfully challenge a government decision to deny a request.
Critics say the state’s current law is outdated and puts barriers in the way of record-seekers.
Differences between the Senate bill and an earlier House version must now be worked out.
Here are some things to know about the public records bill.

Why Change The Rules?

Critics have long argued the state’s 1973 open records law is outdated and lacks enforcement clout, allowing state agencies and municipalities to routinely sidestep requests for public documents. Record-seekers have also been subjected to exorbitant fees — one oft-cited example is a blogger from Somerville who said the city wanted $200,000 for records related to parking tickets. Proponents of an overhaul also say the law hasn’t kept up with dramatic shifts in technology. “The world has changed substantially in the intervening decades but our public records law has not,” said Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester. “It’s still stuck in the 1970s.”

What Would The Bill Do?

The Senate bill would require agencies to respond to public records requests within 15 days, but would allow for extensions to 30 days or 60 days for more complicated requests. Agencies would be required to inform requestors within 10 days if they are not going to meet the initial 15-day deadline. An earlier House bill set a 10-day compliance deadline, but would allow for delays of up to 60 days for state agencies and 75 days for municipalities. The bills would require that any fees charged by agencies for public records be “reasonable,” and that records be delivered in electronic format whenever possible. Amendments added to the Senate bill Thursday would designate homeowner insurance rate requests, and documents related to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority retirement board, as public records in the future.


How Would It Be Enforced?
Critics of the state’s current public records law say it offered little incentive to agencies to comply in a timely fashion, if at all. Supporters of the bill say it would put teeth in the law by allowing document seekers who are denied access to public records to recoup legal fees — in most cases — if they successfully overturn the denial in court.

Would The Legislature Itself Be Covered By The Rules?
No. Neither the House in its version nor the Senate removed the Legislature’s exemption from the public records law. Lawmakers have argued the exemption is needed to protect, among other things, confidential messages to and from constituents. Legislative leaders have expressed a willingness to revisit the exemption in the future years.

Earlier:

at

No comments:

Post a Comment