Posts Tagged ‘Massachusetts’

State legislatures veer toward secrecy

Troubling legislation in four states would seriously undermine the public’s right to know and ability to hold government officials accountable.

Two of the bills — in Indiana and New Jersey — would restrict access to police body camera footage. Legislation in Florida would make it more difficult for citizens and the press to challenge improper government secrecy. And Massachusetts lawmakers are set to vote on a measure that, while aimed at improving the state’s public records law, could do the opposite.

Open government groups have raised concerns about each of the proposals.

Indiana: Police video recordings

A still of body camera footage from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department captured in July 2015. The video recorded a confrontation between police and a man who fired shots at officers.

A still image of body camera footage from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department captured in July 2015. The video recorded a confrontation between police officers and a man who fired shots at them.

The Indiana House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would impose numerous roadblocks on journalists and others who want to obtain police body camera and dash camera videos.

Police already have wide discretion to deny release of such recordings — decisions that can be difficult if not possible to challenge, according to the Hoosier State Press Association.

Under the legislation, House Bill 1019, only two classes of people would be entitled to inspect police video recordings: (1) those depicted in the videos, and (2) when a video shows the interior of a property, the owner of that property. Neither would be allowed to make copies of the recordings, but rather would only have a right to view them.

Anyone else, including reporters, would have to file a lawsuit to obtain a police video recording. Requesters would have to show that disclosure is in the public interest, does not create “significant risk of substantial harm to any person or to the general public,” and will not prejudice civil or criminal proceedings.

If a court orders release of a recording, police would be required to obscure a litany of depictions, such as acts of severe violence, anyone who is under 18 years of age, and crime victims and witnesses.

Requesters who prevail would not be entitled to get their attorney’s fees reimbursed.

The bill could also hamper newsgathering by requiring record requesters to know particular details of every video being requested. Requesters would have to provide the date and time of the activity that was recorded, where that activity occurred, and the name of at least one person who was “directly involved” in the activity but not in a law enforcement capacity.

The Hoosier State Press Association, Indiana Broadcasters Association and Radio Television Digital News Association are opposed to the legislation.

It now goes before the state Senate.

New Jersey: Police body camera footage, 911 records

Similarly, a New Jersey legislator has introduced a bill that would entirely exempt release of police body camera footage from the state’s public records law, along with audio recordings and transcripts of 911 calls.

The bill’s author, state Sen. Paul Sarlo, has said he might amend the legislation to allow for disclosure when police are involved in altercations.

Sarlo represents several municipalities that are being sued by the press for access to records about a 2014 incident in which police shot and killed a 23-year-old black man.

Florida: Reimbursement of attorney’s fees

A Florida bill would make it more difficult for the public and press to enforce the state’s public records law.

The legislation “would remove the requirement that government officials who intentionally violate the state’s public records law pay attorney’s fees when citizens take them to court,” according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Instead, the bill would make reimbursement discretionary, letting judges decide when plaintiffs who prevail in public-records lawsuits should have their attorney’s fees covered.

Many states have cost-shifting provisions similar to Florida’s current version, which often are the only way plaintiffs can afford to go to court.

The legislation advanced Tuesday in a state Senate committee; a state House of Representatives committee already signed off on a companion bill.

Massachusetts: Public records law reform needs reform

SPJNE President Danielle McLean and protesters in front of the Massachusetts State House during the Public Records Reform Rally on Jan. 21, 2016. Photo by Joyce Pellino Crane.

SPJNE President Danielle McLean and protesters in front of the Massachusetts State House during the Public Records Reform Rally on Jan. 21, 2016. Photo by Joyce Pellino Crane.

The Massachusetts Senate is expected to vote within the next few weeks on legislation aimed at improving the state’s public records law, but the proposal has numerous problems, according to Danielle McLean, president of SPJ New England and a member of SPJ’s national Freedom of Information Committee.

The measure, along with a companion House bill that passed late last year, seeks to limit some fees assessed to record requesters and provides for the possibility that plaintiffs who prevail in public-records lawsuits can have their legal expenses reimbursed. But as McLean points out, the legislation has serious problems:

  • It welcomes delays. The legislation would allow the government to wait more than two months to respond to record requests. Currently, officials are supposed to respond within 10 days, but the bill would expand that deadline to 60 days for state government and 75 days for local governments.
  • It restricts enforcement. The bill would require that public-records lawsuits be filed within 30 days of a denial being issued, a fairly narrow window to appeal. The legislation also does not mandate that plaintiffs who prevail will get their legal fees reimbursed; that decision would instead be up to a judge.
  • It fails to address gaping holes. The bill also does nothing to make the public records law apply to the governor, state Legislature or state court system, although it does authorize a study to explore that possibility.

McLean and other freedom of information advocates held a rally last week on the steps of the Massachusetts State House in Boston, calling on senators to amend the law so it requires faster responses to public records requests, provides stronger enforcement mechanisms and reduces fees charged to requesters.

Approximately 25 to 30 people participated in the rally, including journalists, activists and college students.

“During the rally, we had some awesome dialogue, made a lot of noise, and gained some good momentum for the cause,” McLean said.

Jonathan Anderson is chair of the Society’s Freedom of Information Committee.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Massachusetts town fines for public swearing, First Amendment advocates scratch heads

A small town in Massachusetts has imposed a $20 fine for swearing in public. In order to make punishments for offenses more actionable, residents of Middleborough, Mass., voted to make profanity in a public area punishable by fine, along with public marijuana smoking, drinking and dumping snow in roadways.

A similar measure has been on the books in Middleborough since 1968. However, while swearing was a crime in the 1968 ordinance, the new measure is an attempt to “decriminalize” and make it more likely for the police to enforce.

“…people might end up getting fined for constitutionally protected speech.”  – Matthew Segal, ACLU of Mass. legal director

Rather than limit all swearing, this ordinance aims to curb loud profanity in the parks and downtown areas, city officials said, according to the Washington Post.

I’m really happy about it,” Mimi Duphily, a store owner and former town selectwoman, said after the vote, according to the Asociated Press. “I’m sure there’s going to be some fallout, but I think what we did was necessary.”

The First Amendment is an obvious concern. Court cases such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Cohen v. California helped establish freedom of speech. Profanity is allowable under the First Amendment except in cases of true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

“If the Massachusetts attorney general approves it, the ordinance would encourage police to ticket speech that is, and likely will eventually be found to be, constitutionally protected,” a Washington Post editorial said.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email – –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to It may be featured in a future post.







Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

FOI DAILY DOSE: British Columbia gets proactive about open gov, Mass. budget planned in secret

British Columbia plans for more transparency

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark is poised to make good on her promise to make government more transparent, notably with a directive supporting the active disclosure of data.

Clark has already promoted online communications and town-hall meetings as important avenues for open government, and her proposed policy of proactive disclosure would greatly increase citizens’ access to government information.

British Columbia’s government would regularly make data public that is currently only accessible through formal freedom of information act requests, according to a Vancouver Sun editorial.

Clark plans to move toward an open data model that will provide citizens with information on a variety of topics, ranging from the environment to health to spending, in a searchable and easily accessible format.

Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has warned the government that privacy rights must be considered when planning such broad information disclosures.

Stephanie Cadieux, Minister of Labour, Citizens’ Services and Open Government,  and the cabinet committee on open government are developing a specific game plan for implementing this open data policy, although – ironically – it is exempt from access-to-information legislation (as are all cabinet committees).

Mass. budget negotiated behind closed doors

The Massachusetts legislature negotiated a $30.6 billion budget deal in almost total secrecy.

The budget, approved in July, was planned by six legislators who met for 24 days in discussions kept out of the public’s notice. The locations and times for the meet-ups, as well as their agendas and debates, were kept quiet, and no minutes were taken for any of the meetings, according to the Boston Globe.

This kind of information blackout isn’t uncommon in Massachusetts, which has almost no requirements for lawmakers to publicly discuss government business. Fewer than 20 states have similar secrecy practices, and Massachusetts is one of about 10 states in which citizens don’t even have the right to see legislators’ records.

Although public testimony was collected and floor debates were held concerning the budget, the key choices made at the opening and closing of deliberations were decided in secret.

When the legislature votes to approve measures, it is often more of a formality because key leaders have already made the real agreements behind closed doors.

If you want to know more about Massachusetts’ not-so-open open government laws and how they compare to those of other states, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has an open government guide that’s awfully helpful.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email ( or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit


Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn

© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ