Legislature should preserve open government by extending remote meeting authorization
/Op/Ed by Christopher Haraden
Sunshine Week – an annual recognition of the benefits of open government – is celebrated each March, along with St. Patrick’s Day, the return of Daylight Saving Time, and the coming of spring. But this year, with confidence in government dropping and the number of local news outlets continuing to shrink, recognizing the importance of public accountability is more important than ever.
Sunshine Week takes its name from a statement made in 1913 by Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman” when it comes to rooting out dishonesty. The weeklong celebration brings together organizations in the fields of journalism, education, advocacy, and government to shine a light on the need for openness.
In Massachusetts, the concept of open government is being tested by two current debates – whether the upper levels of state government should be subject to the Public Records Law and how to handle the expiring authorization for remote meetings of public boards and commissions.
The first question – whether public records disclosure should apply to the governor, state legislators, and the courts – seems so obvious that there is little reason for debate. Only eight other states exempt their lawmakers from the public records laws, and the arguments being offered to justify it here are nonsense. Forty-two other states have designed their regulations to protect constituents’ privacy and balance the deliberative process of policy-making with the public’s right to know. Massachusetts can do the same.
The Legislature is addressing the second question – whether to allow municipalities to continue holding remote or hybrid meetings after March 31. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives approved a bill to extend the deadline and sent it to the Senate, which may have taken action by the time you are reading this. It is widely expected to be approved.
Like anything in state government, however, it’s not so simple.
Governor Maura Healey has proposed her own municipal reform package that includes permission – but not a requirement – for cities and towns to allow remote participation in public meetings. Her bill contains more controversial proposals that could sidetrack the overall debate, such as whether municipalities can increase auto excise, meals, and hotel taxes, as well as topics ranging from procurement-law changes to tax breaks for senior citizens to tightening restrictions on utility companies keeping “double poles” on public streets. It’s hard to imagine that this mishmash of a proposal will be suitable for a vote by the end of the month.
Nevertheless, the governor’s avoidance of a mandate for remote meeting access isn’t universally supported. While the Massachusetts Municipal Association agrees with Healey, saying that each city or town should decide on its own, others, like the New England Newspaper and Press Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, say that giving governments the discretion to decide whether to offer access through Zoom or another remote platform has the potential to go wrong, and would create an uneven playing field from town to town.
We can joke about remote access to meetings – many have heard stories about participants being caught saying something embarrassing while unmuted or revealing something unusual when turning on their camera – but they have provided an essential public service. More people have been able to participate, or at least listen in, to their government because of the remote option.
With any setup, the danger exists for abuse. Remote platforms like Zoom aren’t always perfect, and the human users of technology aren’t always experts. Some members of the public have complained that boards have refused to recognize digital hands being raised, cut off debate by cutting off microphones, or have blamed technology for limitations on public input. It’s a lot harder to ignore a constituent when they’re sitting directly in front of you in a meeting room, but not everyone has the ability to attend in person.
Zoom and the other remote platforms not only increase public participation in governmental meetings, they allow meetings to be organized quickly, as members (and invited guests) can log in from literally anywhere. Public business can be conducted more efficiently when vacation schedules and travel time to and from town hall are no longer obstacles.
The Legislature’s bill would extend remote meetings through June 2027. The concept has proven its worth and should be made a permanent part of state and local government.
Times Editor Christopher Haraden holds a degree in journalism and public administration from New York University. He’s been writing about his hometown in these pages regularly since 1987.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
