How do public records laws work in New England?
We tested it.

How does Massachusetts compare to its neighbors when it comes to state government transparency? To find out, we decided to ask the governor’s offices of all six New England states for the same records.

Massachusetts voters are now deciding the fate of Ballot Question 1, which asks if the public should have access to most records held by the Massachusetts Legislature and the governor’s office. Massachusetts is the only state to exempt the governor’s office, the legislature and the judiciary from public records laws.

That distinction earned the state this year’s “Black Hole Award” by the Society of Professional Journalists for “deficiencies in the state’s public records law, including broad exemptions, weak enforcement mechanisms and persistent delays that limit access to government information.”

To compare how transparent each of the governor’s offices are in the six New England states, GBH News requested records for gifts received by the governor’s office and staff in the month of December 2025. Not a seemingly difficult question.

The idea was to ask for something simple — nothing related to policy deliberation, call logs, emails, government settlements or travel schedules, all of which have been previously denied by Healey’s office.

All the New England states have laws or codes of ethics that strictly limit the value of gifts that governors can accept. GBH News also requested ethics filings that would indicate gifts.

More than three weeks after the request, not every state had provided the records. However, Massachusetts had the distinction of being the only state that couldn’t even provide a timeline of when the request might be answered. Public record advocates call it more evidence the state is an “outlier,” pointing to the need to change public records law.

What the states said

GBH News has received answers from three of six states.

All states acknowledged the records requests promptly, but only Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have provided the information.

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee’s office said he’d received two gifts that month: Senate President Valerie Lawson sent a “Gift Basket Containing Various Snacks” valued at $100. Rhode Island Speaker of the House K. Joseph Shekarchi sent a “Holiday Gift Basket Containing Italian Products” valued at $200.

Vermont’s records response said Gov. Phil Scott’s office had no records to provide. The office doesn’t keep a ledger or gift log, a records officer responded in an email, but offered to answer any further questions.

“Our general policy is not to accept gifts. However, any gifts received by the office would be raffled off at our annual holiday celebration and monies donated to a charitable organization,” said Karen Pallas, Vermont’s records officer.

A ledger provided to GBH News showed a log of a few dozen holiday raffle tickets sold for roughly $1,600.

Maine had no records of any gifts to Gov. Janet Mills, according to Tim Feeley, deputy legal counsel for the governor’s office. Feeley provided a link to her 2025 annual personal financial disclosure, which showed travel and accommodation for three conferences that year, including the National Governors Association.

Connecticut and New Hampshire said their search was in process.

Only Massachusetts didn’t respond to a follow-up email, and an aide in the records office for the governor said she was unable to provide a timeframe for a reply, noting they are not subject to the timeframes of public records law.

'Massachusetts is an outlier’

Despite being exempt from public records laws, Healey has vowed not to claim blanket exemption and to consider requests on a case-by-case basis. However, Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said the result of our experiment “is more evidence that Massachusetts is an outlier when it comes to government transparency.”

“Records that are routinely provided elsewhere are unreasonably difficult or impossible to obtain here,” Silverman said. “Worse, because the governor’s office claims to be exempt from the public records law, there’s little we can do other than to change the law and demand the same level of transparency already required in other states.”

Scotia Hille is part of a coalition backing “yes” on the ballot question. Hille is the executive director of Act On Mass, which advocates for transparency in government.

“This is just about making sure that our Legislature and governor’s office are held to the same standard of accountability. As most other government officials in our state,” Hille said.

Asked what records she’d want to see, Hille said she’s most curious about lobbyist communications — though she acknowledged communication related to the development of public policy is typically exempt.

“The public has a right to know who’s setting up a meeting with our legislators,” Hille said, “Even if a communication with a lobbyist refers to a ... developing public policy opinion, the email where they set up a meeting wouldn’t.”

The current Massachusetts’ ballot question includes two exemptions — communications that show the development of lawmakers’ policy positions; and citizens’ communications with lawmakers about constituent services. 

Transparency advocates frequently cite the Healey administration’s $360 million plan to renovate MCI-Framingham, the state’s prison for women, as an example of why public records should be more accessible.

“The contracting around that was pretty murky, and advocates lamented the lack of a public records law because we aren’t able to see, you know, what discussions were being had around that contract before it was announced,” Hille said.

There is no formal opposition to the ballot question — though because the exemptions aren’t well defined, there are concerns that passing it could lead to privacy risks or deter communications with lawmakers.

If passed, it’s unlikely that the ballot measure would be immediately implemented. The Legislature is working on its own versions of changes to state records laws that could throw into question the impact of any ballot result, and some experts say the question will likely lead to confusion and potential litigation.