By Christopher Haraden

Last year in this space, we reminded readers about Sunshine Week, an annual recognition of the benefits of open government that is celebrated each March, along with St. Patrick’s Day, the return of Daylight Saving Time, and the coming of spring.

Add to those yearly March activities the lament that Massachusetts has a lousy track record when it comes to ensuring public access to its governmental records and public meetings.

As previously noted, Sunshine Week takes its name from a statement made in 1913 by Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman” when it comes to rooting out dishonesty and generally providing clarity on how the machinery of government operates. The weeklong observation brings together organizations in the fields of journalism, education, advocacy, and government to shine a light on the need for openness.

It’s fitting – and frustrating – that the two debates we wrote about at this time last year remain unresolved. The discussion about whether the upper levels of state government should be subject to the Public Records Law continues, with the Legislature, State Auditor, Attorney General, and governor’s office still at odds about transparency.

The same public records disclosure requirements that are placed on cities and towns should apply to the governor, state legislators, and the courts. Only eight other states exempt their lawmakers from the public records laws, and the arguments being offered to justify it – another year later – are still nonsense. Forty-two other states have designed their regulations to protect constituents’ privacy and balance the deliberative process of policy-making with the public’s right to know. Massachusetts can do the same.

The second question about allowing remote meetings of public boards and commissions has been resolved to a degree, but not on a permanent basis. There also are two proposals coming up at Hull’s annual town meeting this spring that will bring that debate down to the local level – a sign that residents are frustrated enough with how things stand that they are taking matters into their own hands.

Last year, the pandemic-era authorization for remote or hybrid meetings of public boards and committees was set to expire at the end of March, and progress toward a resolution was uncertain. In the end, the remote/hybrid provision was extended until March 2027, when it will need to be reauthorized by the Legislature.

Governor Maura Healey has refiled her own reform package (known as the Municipal Empowerment Act) that includes permission – but not a requirement – for cities and towns to allow remote participation in public meetings. As it did last year, the bill contains a mishmash of more controversial proposals that could sidetrack the overall debate, such as whether municipalities can increase auto excise, meals, and hotel taxes, as well as topics ranging from procurement-law changes to tax breaks for senior citizens to tightening restrictions on utility companies keeping “double poles” on public streets.

A competing bill, H.4381, is narrowly focused on updating the Open Meeting Law to require hybrid meetings statewide.

Here in Hull, we’re encouraged by two citizens’ petitions that will appear on the May 4 town meeting warrant. Article 42 proposes to mandate that “town boards, commissions, and committees shall provide remote access for the general public, by audio or audiovisual means, for in-person or hybrid meetings.” The article also seeks to appropriate funds to buy the “equipment, software, connectivity, technical services, and training necessary” as a counterweight to the argument that the town doesn’t have money in the budget to buy and install the needed equipment in Hull’s aging municipal buildings.

Similarly, Article 39 seeks funds to purchase the equipment needed to ensure that all public meetings of Hull’s boards and committees “shall be recorded in audio or audiovisual format and made publicly available through Hull Cable and/or an official town website within seven (7) days of the meeting.” Both articles give the town a deadline of two months after town offices have moved to the Memorial Middle School, a nod to the idea that retrofitting the middle school as the next town hall should accommodate the technology to accomplish this goal.

That might be too generous an allowance. Many other cities and towns hold hybrid meetings on a regular basis, in buildings older – and in a worse state of repair – than Hull’s current municipal building. The town of Plymouth has even figured out how to hold a hybrid annual town meeting. That Hull can’t seem to work out the details to make this happen immediately is, frankly, nonsense.

Remote access to meetings has provided an essential public service. More people have been able to participate, or at least listen in, to their government because of the remote or hybrid option.

Of course, the technology isn’t foolproof, but as the self-help gurus always say, we shouldn’t let the quest for perfection be the enemy of progress. the human users of technology aren’t always experts, and some members of the public have complained that boards have refused to recognize digital hands being raised, cut off debate by cutting off microphones, or have blamed technology for limitations on public input. It’s a lot harder to ignore a constituent when they’re sitting directly in front of you in a meeting room, but not everyone has the ability to attend in person.

The debate at the state level about mandating hybrid access to meetings has influential organizations on both sides – the Massachusetts Municipal Association favors Healey’s proposal to make hybrid meetings optional, while the American Civil Liberties Union and the New England First Amendment Coalition strongly favor the mandate contained in bill H.4831.

Were we the betting type, we’d wager that the matter remains unresolved at the state level by this time next year. At this spring’s town meeting, Hull voters will be given the chance to set aside the state’s uncertainty by approving these proposals to let the sun shine into local government.

Times Editor Christopher Haraden has been writing about his hometown in these pages regularly since 1987.

Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.

Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.