Every March, Sunshine Week (March 15-21) reminds us that open government isn’t just about records and documents. It’s about whether ordinary citizens can actually participate in the decisions that affect their lives. This year, the Massachusetts Legislature has a chance to make that participation real—not just for those who can get to a meeting, but for everyone.
Hybrid meetings are currently allowed in Massachusetts, but only because the Legislature has repeatedly extended a temporary provision first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The latest extension, signed by Gov. Healey in March 2025, runs only through June 2027. Without permanent legislation, the authorization simply expires—and public bodies that have embraced hybrid access could be forced to return to in-person-only meetings.
House bill H.4831, filed by state Rep. Antonio Cabral and now before the House Ways and Means Committee, would permanently require hybrid meetings under the state’s Open Meeting Law. That means residents of every city and town in Massachusetts—not just those lucky enough to have a progressive select board—would be guaranteed the right to attend their local government meetings remotely or in person.
The case for the bill is straightforward. Since the pandemic, hybrid meetings have transformed civic life. Parents with young children, people with disabilities, shift workers, and residents who face long drives to town hall have all been able to participate in ways that were impossible before. The New England First Amendment Coalition, the ACLU of Massachusetts, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and a broad coalition of disability rights and press freedom organizations all back the bill. Their core argument: When a public body closes the door to remote access, it closes the door on entire communities.
In Harvard, with the rare exception of the Community Preservation Committee, every board or committee meeting, from the Select Board to the Personnel Board, is available via Zoom. Every meeting is also recorded and made available by the Harvard Media Cooperative for later viewing, a boon for the Press’s local reporting as well as for residents whose schedules prevent them from attending when the meeting is live.
The bill’s opponents, including the Massachusetts Municipal Association, raise a legitimate concern. With more than 10,000 boards and commissions across the state—the MMA’s own count—many operating simultaneously with limited staff and space, a blanket mandate could impose real costs on smaller communities that lack the technology and resources to comply.
That concern deserves a direct legislative response. The bill should include, or be paired with, a dedicated grant fund to help fiscally challenged towns buy the equipment and train the staff they need. NEFAC supports the inclusion of a hardship waiver. Accessibility isn’t a luxury—but it shouldn’t be an unfunded burden either.
With the current temporary authorization set to expire in June 2027, the clock is ticking. Locally, state Rep. Dan Sena and state Sen. Jamie Eldridge have already signed on as cosponsors. The full Legislature should follow their lead—and make hybrid meetings a permanent feature of Massachusetts democracy, not a favor each governing body can withdraw at will.