Frustrations Surface at State Review of Open Meeting Law

The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law Advisory Commission (OMLAC), a body comprising representatives from the Attorney General’s office, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and the legislators chairing the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight met via Zoom on June 3, 2026. The primary purpose of this meeting was to review the Division of Open Government’s 2025 Annual Report, discuss the status of several pending legislative bills aimed at modernizing the law, and hear from the public regarding ongoing transparency concerns.

The meeting highlighted a growing sense of frustration among both commissioners and the public regarding the persistence of Open Meeting Law (OML) violations. Commissioner Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford) expressed “amazement” and disappointment that, despite years of centralized education and training by the Attorney General’s office, the number of violations remains high. He questioned whether the current law provides enough individual accountability, suggesting that the lack of “consequences” for public servants leads to a culture of non-compliance.

A significant area of disagreement emerged regarding the mandating of hybrid meetings. Representative Cabral advocated for legislation (H.3299) that would require all public bodies to provide both in-person and remote access to the public. However, Ludlow Town Administrator Marc Strange, representing the Massachusetts Municipal Association, argued that such a mandate would be prohibitively difficult for smaller towns. These communities may lack the IT staffing and infrastructure to troubleshoot connectivity issues during evening meetings, he cautioned.

The 2025 Annual Report provided a sobering statistical backdrop to these debates. During that year, the Division of Open Government received notice of 703 OML complaints filed with public bodies, with 395 of those reaching the Division for formal review. Key findings from the report include:

• Violations were found in 56% of the complaints reviewed by the Division.
• The most frequent violations included insufficiently specific meeting notices, inaccurate or incomplete meeting minutes, and illegal deliberations occurring outside of noticed meetings.
• The Division identified six intentional violations, resulting in a total of $1,350 in fines.
• Common remedies ordered by the state were limited to immediate and future compliance or the retroactive amendment of minutes.

Public comments further characterized deep dissatisfaction with current enforcement. Residents complained that current penalties are merely a “slap on the wrist“ that fail to deter repeat offenders. There was also significant concern regarding the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for legal counsel to defend OML complaints, as well as the fact that the taxpayers—rather than the individual violators—often end up paying any fines imposed on a board.

Christine McHugh-Potts, who publishes a local government e-newsletter called Medfield Insider, made a passionate plea for stronger transparency rules, commenting, “It pains me to see proposed legislation that wants to make open meeting law more constrictive, restrictive to the public.”

One such piece of legislation that been the source of controversy is the multi-faceted Municipal Empowerment Act filed by Governor Maura Healy and endorsed by the Massachusetts Municipal Association.  While the bill would make permanent the current COVID-19 era exemptions allowing remote and hybrid meetings, it gives local government boards complete, unchecked discretion over whether to offer a remote option, rather than requiring a hybrid option.

Transparency advocates, such as the ACLU of Massachusetts, Common Cause Massachusetts, and the New England First Amendment Coalition, warn that this discretionary approach will effectively limit civic participation. If a city council or select board chooses to revert strictly to in-person-only meetings, it will shut out people with disabilities, the elderly, caregivers, and those without reliable transportation.

Transparency advocates are instead pushing for alternative legislation, such as Cabral’s H.3299, An Act to Modernize Participation in Public Meetings which would establish a baseline statewide standard, making hybrid access the mandatory default rather than a local choice.

The likelihood of significant changes to the law remains uncertain in the near term. While several bills, including H.3299 and various Senate versions, have been reported favorably out of committee and have advanced to Ways and Means, Representative Cabral warned that the legislative calendar is crowded. With only two months of formal sessions remaining, he noted it might be difficult to pass these updates before the current pandemic-era emergency rules expire in June 2027. If the legislature fails to act this session, they will be forced to revisit the issue early next year to avoid a “rush” before the deadline.