Although one of the record-tying nine statewide ballot questions in Tuesday’s election is apparently still too close to call, there was no mistaking voters’ thoughts on Question 1.
Voters overwhelmingly approved of the ballot initiative, with nearly 86% in favor of expanding Massachusetts’ public records law to include the Legislature and the Governor’s Office. This was the widest margin of passage for any of the ballot questions.
The outcome proved similar in the 30 municipalities in Franklin County and the North Quabbin region. Question 1 prevailed in all 30, with the collective vote counts adding to 34,920 in favor and 6,200 against.
Over the summer, the state Senate passed a bill promoting transparency and public access in state government. But lawmakers in both chambers pushed their own versions due to separation-of-powers concerns.
State Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, voted for the bill on the Senate floor in July and “yes” at the ballot box on Tuesday. She said the vote clearly indicates that the public and the state Legislature cherish transparency.
“I think it passed very overwhelmingly,” she said in a phone interview on Thursday.
Comerford said the bill in the Legislature will likely pass, and Question 1 was on the ballot simply because the effort began long ago.
“The ballot initiatives have long arcs,” she explained. “They take a long time to get to the ballot.”
Lora Wondolowski, who on Tuesday bested Amy Lavallee to be elected the 1st Franklin District’s next representative, also voted “yes.”
“As somebody coming from municipal government, we have to uphold certain Open Meeting Laws and record information,” she said. “I think the Legislature should be held to the same standards that we are at the local level.”
Wondolowski, who currently serves as Greenfield City Council president, said she will be sworn in as state representative on Jan. 6.
State Sen. Aaron Saunders and state Rep. Susannah Whipps, on the other hand, voted against Question 1. Both said they worry about constituents’ sensitive information being exposed through public records requests.
“I was among the 15% or so [to vote against the question],” said Saunders, D-Belchertown, adding that he did vote in favor of the transparency reform bill in the Legislature.
He said he values transparency, but has concerns about creating hardships for people who communicate with his office under the presumption of absolute privacy.
“We’re in the business, by and large, of protecting folks,” he said. “Not everyone signs up to be in public service.”
For example, he explained, his office received a report of a constituent documenting an alleged sexual assault. He said he would hate for a victim’s name to be published as a type of collateral damage from granting a public records request.
The law, set to go into effect on Jan. 1, allows for appropriate redactions of sensitive information, but there is always a possibility of a mistake being made. This, Whipps said, is why she voted “no” at the ballot box.
Whipps said she has one staff member, who would be tasked with redacting any words regarding health problems, child custody issues, finances and other sensitive information.
“I’m all for transparency when it comes to people wanting to know what we deal with, but I’m going to protect my constituents and their privacy,” said Whipps, I-Athol, adding that this could present an expensive challenge that would get levied onto taxpayers. “If we get a ton of [Freedom of Information Act] requests, I’m going to need another staffer to redact what needs to be redacted.”
As a former Athol Selectboard member, she said she understands the importance of transparency, but she does not want constituents to be negatively affected.
“I’ve been saying this for years — people don’t come to my office when their house is warm and their cupboard is full. I don’t want anyone to be damaged by this need for transparency,” she said. “People deserve dignity and deserve respect. Where do you draw the line?”
Whipps — who on Tuesday was elected to her seventh term overall and fifth as an Independent, running unopposed — said she wants state leadership to establish measures to protect people.
Wondolowski said she is confident that guardrails can be put in place at the state level and her eventual staffer will be able to handle redactions.
“We’re able to do that locally,” she said. “We need to make sure people feel comfortable sending a letter to a member of the Legislature.”
She also said any expense could be offset or recouped by charging the records requester for documents. She added that sensitive medical information is also protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
