To the editor:
Transparency is not optional in government — it is the law. And in Massachusetts, that principle is clearly defined through two essential statutes: the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law and the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
These laws are not bureaucratic formalities. They are the foundation of public trust. They exist to ensure that residents can both see how decisions are made and access the information behind those decisions.
But in Saugus, recent events raise serious concerns about whether that standard is being met.
For years, the Finance Committee’s review of the school budget, a critical step in the town’s fiscal process, has been held at a time and in a manner that allows for meaningful public observation and participation. This year, that consistency has broken down. As Town Meeting approaches in early May, there has been uncertainty around scheduling, and more troublingly, resistance to holding meetings in a venue large enough to accommodate the public.
This is not a minor logistical issue. When public interest is high as it is now with a significant school funding gap, holding meetings in a confined space where residents cannot reasonably attend or observe raises legitimate concerns under the Open Meeting Law. The law is clear: compliance is not just about holding a meeting; it is about ensuring the public can meaningfully access that meeting.
At the same time, there is a second and equally troubling issue: the failure to respond to public records requests.
Under Massachusetts law, municipalities are required to respond to records requests within a defined timeframe. These responses are not optional, nor can they be ignored indefinitely. Yet when requests go unanswered and when residents are forced to follow up repeatedly or escalate to formal appeals it sends a clear message: transparency is being treated as an inconvenience rather than an obligation.
That is unacceptable.
Public records are not the property of government officials. They belong to the people. Whether it is budget documents, communications, or internal analyses, these materials are essential for residents trying to understand how decisions are made and how public funds are being used.
When those records are delayed or withheld, it prevents informed participation and erodes confidence in government.
Taken together, these issues point to a broader problem: a gap between the appearance of transparency and the reality of it.
The law and the courts have made clear that technical compliance is not enough. You cannot satisfy the Open Meeting Law by holding a meeting that the public cannot attend. You cannot satisfy the Public Records Law by simply ignoring requests or responding only when compelled.
Transparency requires effort. It requires intent. And most importantly, it requires respect for the public.
This is not about politics or personalities. It is about process. It is about ensuring that, especially during critical decisions like the town budget and school funding, residents are given a fair and open opportunity to observe, ask questions, and access information.
Saugus residents deserve nothing less.
If we want trust in government, we must earn it. That starts with following the law — not just in form, but in spirit.
Elizabeth Marchese
Town Meeting Member Precinct 6
Saugus
