When Will the Town Follow the State's Orders?

I wish to add some important information to last week's article "Resident's records request still open", which is about my Public Records Request.

The Town of Concord is promulgating information that has already been shown to be untrue by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Supervisor of Public Records, Alan Cote, empowered by the State to determine the public status of government records. Cote issued orders in this case in November 7, 2008 that are specific on these very points.

For example: Selectmen Greg Howes is quoted in the Journal's article: "I think [Stevenson's request is] an abuse of the public records law," and "...I think it's detrimental to the citizens of the town by taking away time that the staff could be spending on day-to-day business. The concern I have as chief administrator of the town is, 'How do you accomplish that without taking away from the healthy operation of the town?'"

Mr. Howes uses the phrase "day-to-day business." Interestingly, Supervisor Cote did, too, in his orders to the Town. "... [A] request that is broad is valid... The spirit of the Public Record Law is to shine light on the business of government and compliance with public record requests is part of the day-to-day business of government." The fulfillment of records requests is integral to the healthy operation of the Town.  It is disturbing to see an elected official having so little regard for the government's obligation of transparency.

The article noted the Town Manager saying that..."[t]o minimize the number of eyes on confidential information, department heads involved in the request will review and redact their own e-mails."  

However, Supervisor Cote's orders stated "...it is a rare instance that the Town Manager or a Department Head is the only individual who can segregate and review records... Clearly, the task of reviewing and redacting records could be performed by a lower paid employee." In fact, Cote affirms that the rate the Town may charge must be no greater than the lowest paid employee in each department.

The article states that "[t]he town has thus far refused to provide the information electronically because electronic copies can be changed." Yet the Supervisor ordered that the emails must "... be produced on a CD or DVD... If the Town is concerned that the integrity of the records will be compromised after they are provided... the Town should provide the records in a read-only format or with other widely available security measures to prevent misuse." State law requires that documents be available in the form in which they were created; email records must therefore be available as emails, not hardcopy. As long as the Town keeps the originals, the read-only "problem" should be a non-issue.

I do agree with Mr. Howes in part. There is an abuse of public records law taking place. By refusing to fulfill the State's orders, Town officials commit this abuse.

I only want the Town to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth, which Cote has ordered them to do in detail. Yet they persist being clear that they won't.  Is the Town ignorant of their responsibilities for public records access? Are they receiving poor counsel?  Are they intentionally delaying the process? I don't know.

The Supervisor isn't just someone we can ignore; his orders can be enforced by State authorities. His office exists to safeguard a fundamental democratic principal: that the government's work is presumed public and open to citizens' examination. It is up to us to see that we are not denied this. Because if we are, democracy cannot survive.

I am deeply disappointed. I love my town. I expect more of it.

(To read the State's orders to the Town, the Town's response to those orders, the MA Public Records Law and other documents pertaining to this case, go to this blog post here.)

Photo Credit: ©2009 Rich Stevenson, Local Color Images