Mandatory virtual access to MA state government ends July 15. Some want it to continue

BOSTON­ — Government access advocacy groups and MetroWest legislators support continued virtual access to government processes after July 15­, when remote access to public government meetings is no longer required, according to meeting provisions in the state’s Open Meeting Law.

Remote access to all levels of public government bodies was “a huge success” that “removed long-standing barriers” and resulted in an “increase in public participation,” said Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.

“Where we were initially worried about how government would continue to function and how we could maintain the same level of transparency and access, the virtual and remote participation was a huge win,” Foster said.

While the remote update to the Open Meeting Law improved access, many aspects of state government were excluded, including the Legislature and its committees, the courts and bodies appointed by a constitutional officer such as the governor whose sole purpose is to provide advice.

In terms of government access during the pandemic, “the only thing that has improved was that things went virtual. Prior to that, there were always these roadblocks that were put up so the public couldn’t weigh in,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

Advocates and legislators seem to agree that virtual access has improved equity and access, especially for those who had barriers in the way.

“Access hasn’t changed for advocates, and in some ways, like participating in hearings, it has become more accessible,” said state Rep. Kate Hogan, D-Stow, the speaker pro tempore.

Large groups of Massachusetts residents, such as those with disabilities, those who are family caregivers or those without access to a working vehicle, have difficulties physically getting to government meetings, especially those at the State House.

“Over these last two and a half years of remote access, they have been able to engage with government and engage with their elected officials in ways they never could before,” said Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition.

“It’s not just about government accountability, it’s also about equity and fairness in making sure that all citizens — regardless of their circumstances — have an opportunity to engage with government and see how their officials are acting on their behalf,” Silverman said.

In light of the virtual access to the Legislature, Craney said it’s “funny” that everything is on Zoom now. He noted that prior to the pandemic, there were “years of lawmakers voting against streaming their committee hearings” because they “didn’t have the technology for it,” so it’s a “good thing the hearings are broadcast” now.

Historically, Massachusetts has ranked low in terms of government transparency and accountability. In 2015, the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based nonprofit investigative journalism organization, gave Massachusetts an "F" for in public access to information, lobbying disclosure and judicial accountability.

As of 2019, the state placed last nationally in financial transparency, according to the Pioneer Institute, a Massachusetts organization that conducts public policy research.

However, virtual access to state government may not be going away as soon as the Open Meeting Law addendum ends. Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, Rep. Jack Lewis, D-Framingham, and Hogan each expressed support for continuing virtual access to the Legislature to some extent.

“There has never been a time in the Senate’s history where residents of the commonwealth have had this many options to participate and engage with their state government,” Spilka said. “It is my desire for these transparency measures to continue beyond COVID-19.”

In the House, Hogan said she is “committed to making this hybrid model, and other important practices we’ve adapted, permanent,” and that she is “working with the Senate to ensure we’re able to sustain higher levels of access and engagement with constituents.”

According to Lewis, whose district lies a little more than 20 miles from the State House, it means when his constituents want to meet with him, they “are not driving into Boston to do so.”

Lewis said he heard from fewer than three constituents over the course of the two years the State House was closed due to the pandemic, and that the “only” people he heard from that were “disappointed that the building remained closed” were lobbyists.

“Meeting people where they are in a way that they want to interact is essential to doing this job successfully,” he said.

He’s “hopeful” the Legislature will be able to “continue some of what worked during the pandemic” as it “opened up the Statehouse in a way that it previously was not.”

In 2019, Lewis said his office received about 30 calls from constituents regarding unemployment, but during 2020 and 2021, it received 450 calls from constituents about unemployment. He credits the increase in call volume partially to his office’s efforts to reach constituents virtually through targeted Facebook advertisements, and their “re-doubled” social media efforts throughout the pandemic.

With increased virtual access, advocates emphasize the importance of both remote and in-person access for government processes.

While the remote governing during the pandemic was a “win-win for the public and the government,” there is “no substitute for in-person deliberation by elected officials,” Foster said.

Even though “remote access has been a game changer and attendance has increased,” in-person access allows another level of accountability that can’t always be achieved remotely,” said Silverman.

Remote meetings have the potential for public officials to “stifle public conversation, to limit public comment, and to really restrict the ways in which the public can engage with them online,” he said.

For Silverman, the goal is to “provide more access” and ensure that “all citizens have access” and to “not resort back” to the practices in place prior to the pandemic, where a “large segment of the population” were “shut out” from in-person government proceedings.

This article originally appeared on MetroWest Daily News: West of Boston legislators want continued remote access to government