Some changes necessitated by the pandemic are worth keeping. Among them are the emergency modifications to the state’s Open Meeting Law that allow public bodies such as the Select Board or the Parks and Recreation Commission to meet remotely—and for the public to join those meetings from the comfort and safety of their own homes and offices. Those allowances will expire July 15 unless the Legislature extends them.
Several bills before the state House and Senate would do so, in particular “An act to modernize public meetings” (H.3152/S.2082). Co-sponsored by more than five dozen legislators, including Harvard’s Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Dan Sena, the measure has the backing of the New England Newspaper and Press Association, the Massachusetts ACLU, and the New England First Amendment Coalition.
The bill would require boards and committees to offer both remote and in-person access to their proceedings, though it contains provisions for public bodies that due to “economic hardship” and “despite best efforts” are unable to comply.
The Press has a particular interest in seeing this or similar legislation enacted to make remote access a permanent feature of local government. The ability to report meetings remotely has allowed the Press to increase its coverage of town affairs by drawing on the talents of out-of-town students of journalism at local universities, including UMass Amherst, Northeastern, and Fitchburg State. And the availability of recordings has made it possible for a reporter to cover competing or inconveniently scheduled meetings that might otherwise be out of reach. In an era of diminished reporting resources, our readers get more bang for their buck.
Remote participation benefits the public as well. As advocates noted in a recent letter to the Governor’s Council, which recently stopped streaming its meetings, remote access has opened doors to members of the public who have previously been shut out: seniors with mobility issues, parents with young children, immunocompromised individuals and their families, and anyone who wants to know more about their government but has no other means to do so. Making meetings available to everyone who wishes to attend is not only about government transparency and accountability, but also equity and access.
In our page 1 article, we report that continued access to public meetings and the recorded sessions of Harvard’s elected and volunteer boards may be in jeopardy. We urge the town to budget and staff adequately to ensure continued full access to every board meeting, no matter where it is held. And we support legislation that would make such access mandatory.
