Sh-sh-sh: Towns keeping secrets from you: Despite the laws, many municipalities still try to operate under public’s radar

 

By JACK ENCARNACAO


 

When a group of Cohasset officials met in March of last year to discuss buying a 19-acre estate without notifying the public, they were not just being discreet. They were breaking the law.

The Norfolk County District Attorney’s office found the session to be in violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law, which is designed to curb the secrecy surrounding the deliberations of public officials.

Thirty years after such open-government laws - collectively called sunshine laws - were strengthened in Massachusetts, instances remain in South Shore communities where important decisions are made behind closed doors, custodians are reluctant to release public documents and boards hold meetings without giving proper notice to the public.

Sunday marks the beginning of Sunshine Week, a national effort to shine light on the public’s right to government information.

Locally, government groups often balk at requests for public documents, say monitoring groups, and public boards turn more frequently than ever to executive sessions, where they can exclude the public and press, to make important decisions.

Vigilance about challenging such actions are as strong as ever, said Alan Cote, the state’s supervisor of public records.

‘‘We’re getting more genuine appeals than we ever have,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s always a local-issue thing. People want to know what’s going on in the community and how their money is being spent.’’

Cote said his office has stopped pursuing what it considers minor requests for public records, such as a company that makes class rings and wants school seniors’ addresses. This gives the office more time to work on complaints from private citizens who want to know what their public leaders are doing.

‘‘The frivolous ones seem to have fallen away,’’ he said.

Another tool citizens use to enhance government transparency is reporting open meeting violations to their local district attorney’s office.

The law requires all boards and committees to conduct business in public. There are some exceptions, including negotiating labor contracts, discussing an employee’s health or reputation and other narrowly defined reasons.

Norfolk County District Attorney William Keating’s office has investigated 97 allegations of Open Meeting Law violations in the past five years, and last year found five such violations. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz’s office investigated 106 in the past five years and found 24 violations.

‘‘There are a lot more calls than there are investigations,’’ said Bridget Norton Middleton, a spokeswoman for Cruz. ‘‘There are a certain percentage in the towns who are very involved and care a lot. You get a lot of repeat phone calls.’’

One of those groups has long been Hanson Government Watchers. Betty Dahlberg, the group’s president, said public officials seem more interested in exemptions to the Open Meeting Law than the spirit of the law itself.

‘‘It seems like these days not much of importance is done in open sessions,’’ she said. ‘‘They just seem to find excuses to go behind closed doors more than they ever did in the past.’’

Dahlberg cited a situation last April, when Hanson selectmen were criticized for hiring Executive Secretary Michael Finglas during an executive session.

A similar situation in Carver last month sparked the ire of resident Paul Johnson. Selectmen extended the contract of Town Administrator Richard LaFond well in advance of its expiration behind closed doors.

‘‘We need more than Sunshine Week, we need Sunshine Year,’’ Johnson said. ‘‘The Open Meeting Law and the public records law . . . there’s no teeth to it at all. (Officials) violate the law with impunity, and when they get caught they know they’re going to get their wrist slapped and walk. That’s the problem.’’

Victor DeSantis, a former political science professor at Bridgewater State College, said vigilant citizens are key to maintaining open local government.

‘‘Vigilance is cyclical,’’ he said. ‘‘You might have a government watchdog group up in one community and then the community next door has one. These things sort of come and go. In the lull periods, you wonder to what extent there is some sense of complacency.’’

Though it rarely happens, officials who violate the Open Meeting Law may can be fined up to $1,000.

Massachusetts adopted its first Open Meeting Law in 1958 and has had laws mandating the disclosure of public records as far back as 1851, when the Legislature decreed, ‘‘All county, city or town records and files shall be open to public inspection.’’ In the wake of the Watergate scandal, the laws were revamped.

Provisions governing closed meeting sessions were specified, allowing meetings to be held in private only in nine specific situations. Cote said minutes of these sessions, the printed record of what happens at pubic meetings, are not available quickly enough.

‘‘There needs to be greater concentration and emphasis on minutes,’’ he said. ‘‘Minutes of meetings must be available at the conclusion of the meeting and they need to be as complete as possible. Even if they're handwritten.’’

Jack Encarnacao may be reached at jencarnacao@ledger.com .

Copyright 2006 The Patriot Ledger