Massachusetts is often celebrated for its rich history and vibrant communities, but its reputation takes a hit when it comes to transparency in government—particularly regarding access to public records. Recent investigations have highlighted the persistent obstacles faced by journalists, advocates, and everyday citizens in exercising their right to obtain information under the state’s public records law. Despite a legal framework intended to promote openness, a culture of secrecy, especially within powerful agencies like the Massachusetts State Police, continues to frustrate those seeking accountability.

The Promise vs. the Reality of Public Records Access

The Massachusetts Public Records Law is designed to grant the public access to a wide range of governmental documents. In theory, this should enable transparency and bolster accountability across state agencies. However, in practice, the law often falls short. Requests for records frequently encounter delays, excessive fees, redactions, or outright denial, undermining the law’s intended purpose.

A freelance journalist who investigates police misconduct described the experience as a constant uphill battle. Agencies sometimes ignore requests entirely or charge exorbitant fees that discourage follow-up. In one notable instance, it took nearly a year to receive just two spreadsheets from the State Police—a well-funded agency with ample resources. Such tactics frustrate not only journalists but also citizens eager to understand the inner workings of their government.

A Deep-Rooted Culture of Secrecy

Transparency advocates argue that the problem is systemic and linked to a culture that trickles down from Massachusetts’ highest offices—including the governor and legislature—to law enforcement and other state agencies. This secretive environment is fortified by legislative exemptions. Notably, the governor’s office, legislature, and judiciary are exempt from the public records law altogether, setting a precedent that fosters noncompliance elsewhere.

Among law enforcement bodies, the Massachusetts State Police stand out for their particularly tight grip on information. Recognized nationally for their secrecy, they receive thousands of public records requests annually and frequently invoke complex exemptions or impose heavy redactions that dilute the value of the disclosed information.

Legal Loopholes and Enforcement Challenges

Under current law, agencies can request extensions beyond the mandated 10-day response window or petition to charge fees above the statutory maximum of $25 per hour. They can also claim one of nearly two dozen exemptions to avoid full disclosure. While the public has the right to appeal denials through the state’s Supervisor of Public Records, the existing system places enforcement beyond that office’s reach. To compel compliance, requesters often have to resort to costly and time-consuming court battles.

Advocates for reform argue that the Supervisor of Public Records must be granted enforcement authority, enabling them to take legal action against agencies that obstruct transparency without forcing citizens to pursue the matter through the courts.

Hope for Change Amid Institutional Resistance

The arrival of new leadership at the Massachusetts State Police offers some cause for optimism. Advocates suggest this could be an opportunity to reset the agency’s approach to transparency—shifting from secrecy to a presumption of openness in responding to public records requests.

The Secretary of State’s office has expressed support for reforms that would empower the Supervisor of Public Records with the ability to enforce compliance. While legislative changes have been slow, recent updates to the law now allow requesters to recover legal fees in certain cases, providing some leverage when pursuing enforcement through the courts.

The Road Ahead

Despite challenges, the struggle for transparency in Massachusetts public records continues. Journalists, First Amendment advocates, and everyday citizens are pushing for a legal framework that truly reflects the principles of openness and accountability. Until systemic reforms are made to close loopholes and grant enforcement powers, access to public records in Massachusetts will likely remain a challenging and often frustrating endeavor.

The public’s right to know is not just a legal entitlement—it is a cornerstone of democratic governance. And as Massachusetts grapples with its culture of secrecy, the push for transparency stands as a vital mission to ensure government institutions serve the people, not shield themselves from scrutiny.