Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Hearing on legislation to create an open meeting law that applies to the Massachusetts Legislature to be held

By

Note:  I have not been involved in lobbying creating this bill.  I am so far able to attend and testify, so I intend to do so barring being required to be  present at a sudden emergency court date to protect a client, which can occur with less than 24 hours notice. I will be filing a “white paper”.

I agree with Christopher that the current “Open Meeting Law” is in need of revision.  This legislation could be utilized to do so.

The reality that at this time the legislature is exempt from any requirements as to openness, and that having the legislature totally exempt from any requirement of openness  is harmful, and has led to some extremely bad legislation, at least in my opinion.

Here is the information, for those who may wish to attend and testify:

STATE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE – PUBLIC RECORDS: Bills altering the public records and open meeting laws are on the agenda for a State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee hearing Tuesday.  Among the proposals are the Massachusetts Sunshine Bill (H 828), Rep. Thomas Stanley’s bill to include the Legislature in the open meeting law (H 848), and Rep. Antonio Cabral’s bill to enhance access to electronic public records (H 1736).  The agenda also includes Sen. Patricia Jehlen’s plan for inspection of campus police logs (S 1582) and Rep. Shaunna O’Connell’s bill dealing with online information about sex offenders (H 1745). (Tuesday, 11 a.m., Room B-1)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. When I was first appointed to Milford’s Renewable Energy Advisory Committee, I had to take a short course in compliance with the open meeting law. I was angry when I found out that the legislature had exempted themselves from that law, and given the corruption we’ve seen on Beacon Hill just since I found that out, I think it’s well past time to take a look at it.

    Deb, do you know what time the hearing will take place? I’m working just a few Red Line stops away, I may be able to make it if it’s late in the day.

  3. H 848 attempts to amend a law that has been repealed. The new open meeting law can be found at in Chapter 30A section 18. I don’t think Rep. Stanley is off to a promising start.

  4. Here is the current Open Meeting Statute, but with two words added in bold (same addition as in H848 but in the right place) – a bill like H 848 is a timely filed place holder; its contents can be stricken and my suggested contents inserted, just how it works:

    Display Reference Line

    Massachusetts General Laws

    CHAPTER 30A. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.

    Section 18. Definitions applicable to Secs. 18 to 25

    Section 18. Definitions applicable to Secs. 18 to 25

    [Text of section added by 2009, 28, Sec. 18 effective July 1, 2010. See 2009, 28, Sec. 106.]

    Section 18. As used in this section and sections 19 to 25, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:
    “Deliberation”, an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction; provided, however, that “deliberation” shall not include the distribution of a meeting agenda, scheduling information or distribution of other procedural meeting or the distribution of reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed.
    “Emergency”, a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.
    “Executive session”, any part of a meeting of a public body closed to the public for deliberation of certain matters.
    “Intentional violation”, an act or omission by a public body or a member thereof, in knowing by violating the open meeting law.
    “Meeting”, a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body’s jurisdiction; provided, however, “meeting” shall not include:
    (a) an on site inspection of a project or program, so long as the members do not deliberate;
    (b) attendance by a quorum of a public body at a public or private gathering, including a conference or training program or a media, social or other event, so long as the members do not deliberate;
    (c) attendance by a quorum of a public body at. a meeting of another public body that has complied with the notice requirements of the open meeting law, so long as the visiting members communicate only by open participation in the meeting on those matters under discussion by the host body and do not deliberate;
    (d) a meeting of a quasi judicial board or commission held for the sole purpose of making a decision required in an adjudicatory proceeding brought before it; or
    (e) a session of a town meeting convened under section 10 of chapter 39 which would include the attendance by a quorum of a public body at any such session.
    “Minutes”, the written report of a meeting created by A public body required by subsection (a) of section 23 and section 5A of chapter 66.
    “Open meeting law”, sections 18 to 25, inclusive.
    “Post notice”, to display conspicuously the written announcement of a meeting either in hard copy or electronic format.
    “Preliminary screening”, the initial stage of screening applicants conducted by a committee or subcommittee of a public body solely for the purpose of providing to the public body a list of those applicants qualified for further consideration or interview.
    “Public body”, a multiple member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branch or within any county, district, city, region or town, [or the General Court] however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose; provided, however, that the governing board of a local housing, redevelopment or other similar authority shall be
    deemed a local public body; provided, further, that the governing board or body of any other authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose in the commonwealth or any part thereof shall be deemed a state public body; provided, further, that “public body” shall not include the general court or the committees or recess commissions thereof, bodies of the judicial branch or bodies appointed by a constitutional officer solely for the purpose of advising a constitutional officer and shall not include the board of bank incorporation or the policyholders protective board; and provided further, that a subcommittee shall include any multiple member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body.
    “Quorum”, a simple majority of the members of the public body, unless otherwise provided in a general or special law, executive order or other authorizing provision.

    My proposed Amendment would be that the “public body” definition in Section 18 be amended to include the bracketed language, and that H 848 be changed by stricking its contents, and adding:

    To Amend G.L. 30A Section 18 by inserting the words “General Court” after the word “town” in the definition of “public body” in Section 18.

    BINGO – I will be providing a letter on my letter head to the full committee requesting that the language of H 848 be amended in that fashion, and the statute updated so as to improve the accountability and public confidence in the GGreat and General Court (the actual name of the legislature on Beacon Hill).

    • In your original diary you say, “I agree with Christopher that the current “Open Meeting Law” is in need of revision. This legislation could be utilized to do so.” My reaction was great, now we’re getting somewhere, since after all I am in principle and in general in favor of transparency. Yet, in your above comment you seem to suggest that all that needs to happen is to insert the words “General Court” into the list of public bodies to which the current statute applies. That is EXACTLY what I object to without some overall loosening things up a bit.

      • Why do you think the current open meeting law needs to be loosened up? I’d be in favor of tightening, if anything – openness and transparency from government builds trust on the part of the governed, no?

        • Probably not as formal as your training since this was for the public as opposed to members of applicable boards. We were told members of these bodies couldn’t even discuss something as mundane as corrections to minutes via email, or even telephone, as that could constitute “serial deliberation”. I believe notice and minutes should be posted, public comment provided for, and votes taken in public. However, I don’t have the slightest problem with members (even enough to constitute a quorum) informally “talking shop” offline, off the record, and away from public view. We don’t have to hear absolutely everything that is said while people may be thinking out loud. If I really wanted to be a lawyer about it I would be tempted to challenge prohibitions on such on 1st Amendment grounds as such prohibitions infringe on one’s right to speak to whom and about what they wish.

          • I was told that we can discuss committee business outside of our formal meetings, but we can’t vote on anything or take any action unless we are in a meeting, with a quorum, announced at least 48 hours ahead of time and open to the public. Conflict of interest rules also apply, committee members may not profit directly or indirectly by any actions of the committee.

            So, to your example of meeting minutes – we distribute them ahead of time, and everyone reads them. If someone has a correction or addition, it’s emailed to the secretary, who makes the change and redistributes prior to the next meeting. At the next meeting, the first order of business is to review the minutes of the prior meeting. Typically a motion is made to dispense with the reading (since everyone has already read them and weighed in on them) and a vote is taken.

      • Since you DO mind it, and you seem to have revisions you would like made, as I have provided it, why not use the modality I demonstrated and insert or remove language to improve the areas you would like improved, or correct the areas YOU would like improved? I really don’t know what you find burdensome. You do.

        • Personally, I’d probably start from scratch laying out the requirements. I do actually believe the requirements should be the same for state and town bodies, but since I don’t like what is required of towns I want to fix it first rather than apply what I see as bad law to another body.

          • As an informed citizen, it is my duty to be watchful over my government, and to request action from my legislature. A premise of the founding fathers was that the citizenry would be literate, and pay attention to and direct their government. In the absence of an informed, watchful, and involved citizenry we will lose our republic, and rather than having representative democracy any longer, we will be like sheep in a pen.

            • …and certainly I’ve been known to give input. I just was trying to say that I wasn’t waiting for you to act on my opinions either.

    • Does the Legislature HAVE a quorum? The ‘deliberations’ section might prevent a caucus meeting of Democrats.

      • The 33rd amendment to the MA Constitution says that a majority of each chamber shall constitute a quorum for that chamber.

        • …in neither chamber could the Democrats caucus without violating the law. The deliberations could not be private, but would be subject to public records law, since no opinion could be expressed. Now, maybe that’s not a PROBLEM for the Democrats, since they can’t express opinions while having marching orders handed out…

    • Amber – I think you also need to strike the next-to-last proviso in the definition of “public body.” That proviso specifically exempts the general court (and various other bodies) from the law. Good luck.

  5. But I am going to go on down, speak my peice, and file a letter and possibly a short white paper.

    You know. If not me, who? If not now, when? Besides:

    Brutus:
    There is a tide in the affairs of men.
    Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
    Omitted, all the voyage of their life
    Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
    On such a full sea are we now afloat,
    And we must take the current when it serves,
    Or lose our ventures.
    Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

    Given the recent corruption convictions, the public disgust with business as usual on Beacon Hill, well, the time is right – and ripe – to try and do this.

Archives