BOSTON — State legislators reached agreement Monday on draft legislation that could update the Massachusetts Public Records Law for the first time in more than 40 years, pleasing open-government groups across the state calling for more transparency.
The bill, finalized by a conference committee of legislators from the Senate and House, establishes deadlines for record requests, places a cap on fees that agencies and municipalities may charge for compilation and printing and allows those suing for requested records to receive “reasonable attorney fees and costs” if they are awarded relief, according to the draft.
“Today the joint committee has paved the way for the legislature to vote on badly needed, substantial public records reform – our first in over 40 years,” Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said in a statement. “The bill increases transparency, and improves access by increasing affordability and shortening turnaround time. When the legislature passes the bill, and the governor signs it, we will be able to look forward to greater transparency, civic engagement, and better governance.”
The bill, which will go the House first, could be voted on as soon as Wednesday according to Peter Wilson, a spokesman for Rosenberg. If the bill is approved by the House, it would go to a vote in the Senate before it moves on to be signed by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The legislative session ends July 31, but Wilson said bills crafted by a conference committee are “historically” brought to a vote before the end of session.
The bill is a compromise between different versions of public record reform legislation approved earlier by the House and Senate.
“The Massachusetts Freedom of Information Alliance – a coalition of open-government groups – lauded the results of (the conference committee’s) work as both strong and balanced, and called for swift passage by the full legislature,” Massachusetts Common Cause said in a statement. “If signed into law by Governor Baker, the legislation would accomplish several important things to address widely criticized weaknesses in Massachusetts public records law.”
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts called the proposed bill “win-win legislation, based on practical, tested solutions,” according to the statement.
Bob Ambrogi, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association agreed.
“This bill would enhance the ability of citizens and journalists to obtain records on a timely basis at a reasonable cost and to enforce their rights when they are wrongfully denied access to public records,” Ambrogi said.
The bill would require agencies and municipalities establish a supervisor of records to oversee requests. Wilson explained the job does not have to be an employee’s sole position.
Under the legislation, records access officers must furnish record requests no later than 10 business days from when they are received. If the
officer is unable to comply within the 10 day limit, they must send a written response which identifies the records and provides a specific reason for withholding it or establishes a reasonable time frame in which the records will be produced.
The resulting time frame may not exceed 15 business days following initial requests to agencies and 25 business days for requests to communities. The supervisor of records may grant a single extension not to exceed 20 days for an agency and 30 business days for a municipality.
The new policy requires that records officers to do more than just acknowledge records requests, Wilson said. The officer will need to provide the requested records or establish a time frame rather than just confirm they received the request.
If an agency or municipality does not acknowledge a request during the 10-day period by producing records or explaining reasons for an extension, no fee may be charged to the requestor, the proposed bill states. Wilson said the rule is to encourage officials to respond to requests in a timely manner.
Black-and-white standard copies would cost five cents per page, under the legislators. According to Wilson, individual agencies and municipalities may currently charge 20 to 50 cents per page.
Agencies may not charge requestors for the first four hours of employee time to search for, compile and reproduce records. Municipalities may not charge for the first two hours of employee time unless the town’s population is under 20,000. The office must assign fees at a rate equal to the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the work, but may not exceed $25 per hour.
The bill states no charge can be made for segregating or redacting records unless required by law or approved by a supervisor of records.
If a requestor obtains relief in court, the legislation would permit reasonable attorney fees and costs to be granted at a judge’s discretion, according to Wilson.
The bill permits punitive damages between $1,000 and $5,000 to be deposited in the Public Records Assistance Fund if an agency or municipality is found acting not “in good faith.”
Included in the proposal is a mandate for agencies and municipalities, when feasible, “to provide commonly available public record documents online.”
The legislation would also establish a working group to review and evaluate whether Criminal Offender Record Information is considered public record in regard to law enforcement. A special commission will be established to examine the expansion of the legislative process of the general court to the public records law.
Both reports must be filed by December 30, 2017, if the bill becomes law.