It’s Not About Storage Space — It’s About Open Government
When residents ask why full packets of meeting materials aren’t posted online ahead of a board or committee meeting, the stock reply from some officials is familiar: “The town doesn’t have the storage space to host them.”
That answer does not hold water. Digital storage is dirt cheap. Municipal IT systems already manage terabytes of documents, from personnel files to GIS maps. Hosting meeting packets — usually a few dozen PDFs a month — is trivial. The issue isn’t technological. The issue is cultural: whether local government embraces transparency, or prefers to keep residents in the dark.
The Legal Framework: Transparency Isn’t Optional
Massachusetts has two key statutes designed to prevent secrecy in local government:
The Open Meeting Law (M.G.L. c. 30A, §§18–25) exists so the public can witness the decision‑making process “at every stage.” It requires not only that meetings be open, but that materials used in deliberations be available to the public. In plain terms, if board members have a staff report or developer submission in front of them, residents have a right to see it too.
The Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 66, §10) establishes that most documents produced or received by local officials are presumed public. The law envisions access, not obstruction, and certainly not denial under the guise of file size or storage capacity.
Together, these laws are not mere formalities. They are the guardrails that keep local democracy from collapsing into insider negotiations.
Open vs. Closed Local Government
Open Government lives up to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Meeting packets are posted online, on time, in full. Residents arrive informed, reviewing the same memos, plans, and financials as their elected representatives. This strengthens accountability and fosters trust.
Closed Government withholds or delays information. Materials are distributed to board and committee members but withheld from the public until the meeting is underway — or not posted online at all, forcing residents to file formal records requests just to see what their government is acting upon. Who benefits? Not the residents. The advantage goes to developers and insiders, who already had access or advanced notice.
And we must ask plainly: are government officials and staff who do only the bare minimum truly serving the public interest? Meeting the lowest threshold of compliance — posting only what is legally unavoidable, releasing information only after pressure, or hiding behind narrow technicalities — does not fulfill the spirit of public service.
When transparency is treated as a burden rather than a duty, residents are left under‑informed, blindsided by decisions, and forced to operate in the shadows of their own government. The result is not genuine public engagement but a box‑checking exercise that protects the institution more than the community.
Doing the bare minimum may satisfy a technical obligation, but it fails democratic accountability. The law is a floor, not a ceiling. Officials who choose to stay at the floor level signal that their ultimate loyalty is not to residents, but to preserving control and minimizing scrutiny. That is not service in the public interest — it is service to convenience, and too often, private advantage.
The Reality: Complaints Are Mounting
This is not theory. Residents have already filed Open Meeting Law complaints with municipalities and the Attorney General against boards in communities. And this is not the first time.
The Attorney General’s Office investigates these complaints. Yet why should residents need to rely on legal interventions to get what the law already guarantees — equal access to the information shaping their neighborhoods?
“Storage Space” Is A Smokescreen
The argument that web servers lack storage capacity is a deflection — and a damaging one. It disguises what is really at stake: whether a board’s default posture is transparency or secrecy. Every megabyte of withheld information tips the scale toward closed government, where the public is sidelined and developers and special interests walk away as the primary beneficiaries.
The Real Choice Ahead
So let’s frame the question honestly:
Do we want government “open” — where residents, developers, and special interests stand on the same level playing field, equally informed?
Or do we permit government to remain “closed” — where residents fight uphill battles against processes already structured to keep them out?
Massachusetts law is clear. Access is not optional. Transparency is not a perk to be granted when convenient; it is an obligation. Every Open Meeting Law complaint underscores that the problem is not about storage space. It’s about will — and whether residents will accept excuses, or demand the transparency the law already guarantees them.