New Englanders Favor Open Government

A recent poll commissioned by The New England First Amendment Coalition (NEFAC) and conducted by the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center shows the vast majority of New Englanders believe having open access to the workings of government is important to citizen and favor strengthening laws to protect access, such as making government agencies pay any legal bills necessary to open public records.  

Among the findings:

• One in four respondents strongly believe that public business in their community is done out of public view.
• The majority in the six-state region believe the news media seeks out public information useful to citizens. But one in four people polled disagreed, 14 percent strongly.
• Most citizens have not asked for a public record in the last 12 months and, of those who did, 87 percent said they got what they asked for. 
• A plurality of respondents said they were familiar with the workings of their state's open records laws.
• On the whole, New Englanders are satisfied with the response of state and local government to citizen requests for access, but they remain skeptical of government motives.

Get the full report here and more from NFOIC here. 

Recalcitrant Officials Stymie Public Records Requests in Massachusetts

The Boston Globe brings us this story of the frustrations of dealing with obfuscatory officials who evade public records laws by charging exorbitant fees or by unreasonable delay.

Here is an excerpt, showing how the state's laws make it easy it is for Massachusetts officials to evade the open records laws:

Jon Albano, a First Amendment lawyer with Bingham McCutchen who frequently represents the Globe in battles for public records, said the lack of an enforcement mechanism in Massachusetts allows officials to virtually ignore Galvin’s demands.

“They don’t have to comply with his orders, so they treat them like advisory opinions,’’ Albano said. “Across the state, government officials really and truly do not take the public records law as seriously as they take their other responsibilities.’’

Albano said enforcement of the law would be enhanced by a streamlined process for hearing public records disputes in the courts.

Indeed, with no power to fine or otherwise discipline uncooperative officials, Galvin must rely on the attorney general’s office, which is often reluctant to take action against state agencies in public records cases, perhaps because the office represents those same agencies in other legal matters.

And if the attorney general declines to act, those stymied in their request for public records must rely on the courts, where the cost of filing a lawsuit may be prohibitive and the time it takes to obtain a decision may render the value of the information moot.

Computer Forensics Experts Investigate Whether Boston Mayor's Office Violated Public Records Laws

After a senior aide to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino produced only 18 emails in response to a Boston Globe request spawning a six-month period, an independent computer forensics specialist is examining the computer and software to help determine if the mayor's office violated public records laws.

For more information, click here.

Group requests audio/videotapes concerning Gates' arrest

Judicial Watch filed a Massachusetts Public Records Request for any audiotapes or videotapes recorded before, during or after the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, according to Marketwire.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Massachusetts Public Records Request with the Cambridge, MA, Police Department regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

Any audiotapes or videotapes recorded prior to, during, or after the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates on July 16, 2009.

On July 16, Sergeant James Crowley responded to a 911 phone call from a passerby reporting two men attempting to force open the door at Professor Gates' Harvard Square home. Professor Gates claims that he had just returned from a trip to China and his front door was jammed. He asked his driver to help him force it open.

More here.

Also, 911 Tape Raises Questions in Gates Case, NYTimes: "The woman who called 911 to report a possible breaking and entering at the home of Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. told the dispatcher that she had “no idea” if the two men she saw were breaking in and said that, in fact, they might live there." The recording was released by the Cambridge Police Department.

Why access to e-mail matters

E-mails obtained by a Massachusetts House reporter indicated that members of the governor's administration had orchestrated the hiring of state Sen. Marian Walsh "as payback for being an early supporter," inflated the salary of the state job in question and modified the job description to compensate for her lack of technical expertise, Bruce Mohl wrote in a column for The MetroWest Daily News. However, the records weren't provided by the governor, who insists that he is not covered by the Public Records Law. The records, which forced Walsh to drop out of the running, were provided by the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority.

The emails that derailed state Sen. Marian Walsh's bid for a high-paying state authority job saw the light of day only because of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. It was one of those rare instances where transparency trumped politics as usual, where a law designed to reveal the inner workings of government actually worked.

The state's Public Records Law is generally weak and ineffective. Vast swaths of state government are exempt from the law and many documents are shielded from its reach by a growing list of legislatively approved exceptions. Many government officials ignore the law and others subvert it by improperly withholding documents or charging excessive fees to produce information. Which is why the Walsh case is so refreshing.

A State House reporter filed a public records request on March 20 for emails and other documents related to the senator's controversial appointment. Seven days later he received information contradicting the public statements of Walsh, the Patrick administration, and the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority, where Walsh was slated to become assistant executive director.

More here.

ProPublica calls out county for not responding to request

What did ProPublica do when one district attorneys' office didn't respond to its public records requests? It wrote a story detailing the possible law violation committed by Middlesex County, Mass., and District Attorney Gerry Leone.

In the course of our investigation into district attorneys’ offices [1] that earn kickbacks from a company that collects bounced checks, we used public records laws to obtains thousands of pages of contracts and budget documents. Only one DA’s office refused to provide records.

That would be Middlesex County, Mass., and District Attorney Gerry Leone.

We filed our first request on Oct. 20, 2008. Leone’s office didn’t respond within the 10-day period required by law, so we turned to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, which monitors compliance with the Massachusetts Public Records Act. For several weeks, we worked with the secretary’s office because no one at Leone’s office would return calls or e-mails.

More here.

Newton resident concerned about honor system

A Newton, Mass., resident fears that an honor system is simply not enough to prevent misuse of the 62 take-home cars for city employees, the Newton TAB reported. The only things tracked are gasoline usage and miles per gallon; trip logs are not required.

Last year, Newton spent nearly $120,000 on 62 cars that some city employees can take home. And while taxpayers foot the bill for gas and maintenance for the cars, employees are not asked to submit trip logs or otherwise explain how they use the vehicles.

“To some extent, we’re on the honor system,” said mayoral spokesman Jeremy Solomon. “Overall, we don’t consider abuse of vehicles in the city to be a problem.”

But the city’s policy didn’t sit well with one Newton resident. In February, Ted Kaplan requested information about the take-home cars under the Freedom of Information Act. What he found out just led to more questions.

More here.

Mass. tells public school system it can't charge $14K for directory data

Cambridge Public Schools argued that it would cost $14,426.88 to compile directory information on its students. This did not even include reproduction costs for the copies of documents. Massachusetts Supervisor of Public Records has given the district 10 days to respond with a reasonable charge.

The state’s public records division ordered Cambridge Public Schools to nix its $14,000 charge for public information, saying the school district should be charging a reasonable rate for a complete list of students.

The Chronicle originally made the request in 2007 using the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act to gain access to a list of Cambridge Public School students that would be used for informational purposes, not for publication.

“You are hereby ordered to provide [the Chronicle] with a revised written, good faith estimate which reflects the actual costs of providing the names of the students whose parents have consented to release of ‘directory information,” Supervisor of Public Records Alan Cote wrote in a Feb. 12 letter.

More here.

First Amendment Center to offer advice, education

Northeastern University's creation of the New England First Amendment Center is garnering much attention, which is not a surprise since news reports of government restricting access to information has increased significantly.

Northeastern University said Friday that it has created a research and advocacy center to increase access to public records, which have become increasingly shielded by government.

The New England First Amendment Center will offer citizens, journalists and public policy organizations information on access to government. The university-based center will have a hotline to advise people seeking public documents and will host seminars for journalists, municipal officials and lawmakers on public records and open meeting laws.

Walter Robinson, Northeastern's coordinator of the center, said the federal government has restricted access to more records since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

More here.

Visit the New England First Amendment Center Web site here.

Northeastern University establishes center to promote open government

From the Boston Herald:

Northeastern University has established a research and advocacy center to focus attention on increasing efforts by government to limit access to public records and meetings.

The "First Amendment Center of New England" will offer citizens, journalists and public policy organizations information on open access to government. The center, announced Friday, will also have a hotline to advise citizens seeking public documents and will host seminars on public records and open meeting laws.

The university-based center is a joint project of the New England First Amendment Coalition and Northeastern’s School of Journalism.

More here.

Public Denied Info Under Mass. Bill...

If only our elected officials were as concerned with our right to know...as they are about protecting criminal records from those who have every reason to know about them...

People with criminal records would be able to more quickly shield that information from prospective employers under legislation filed Friday by Gov. Deval Patrick, who says the change will give them a better chance to become productive citizens.

Patrick's proposed overhaul of the state Criminal Offender Record Information or "CORI" system is aimed at giving people a second chance after they've served prison or probation terms, and even after being cleared of criminal charges.

"It improves their opportunity to get employment," said Kevin Burke, Patrick's secretary of public safety.

Currently, people convicted of felonies can seek to seal their criminal record after 15 years. Patrick's bill shortens the wait to 10 years, and shortens the wait on misdemeanor convictions from 10 to five years -- if the person stays out of trouble.

Misdemeanor violations of restraining orders would remain unchanged at 10 years, while sex offenders would never be eligible to seal records.

More here.