Audit: Only 117 municipalities post basic records online

March 19, 2009 12:25 PM Email| Comments (7)| Text size – +

By Globe Staff

In Massachusetts, 117 cities and towns are being recognized today for posting six basic governance records online. That means the other 237 municipalities across the state fall short, failing to post documents such as budgets, bylaws, agendas, and meeting minutes.

The e-Government Awards, bestowed by Common Cause Massachusetts, date to 2006, when only 24 cities and towns publicized the six records on the web.

"I'm encouraged both at the progress we've made," said Pamela H. Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause, "but I am also humbled by the work we still need to do."

In addition to the basic requirements, 49 cities and towns will be honored with e-Government Awards with Distinction for posting archived governing board agendas and minutes, zoning by-laws, school committee agendas and minutes, agendas and minutes for an additional board or committee, and a calendar with all public meetings.

The awards are the result of an audit of all municipal websites in the state. The results will be presented today in Nurses Hall at the State House as a part of Sunshine Week, a national initiative by the American Society of Newspaper Editors created to raise awareness about the importance of open government and freedom of information.

The six records that must be posted online to qualify for an e-Government Award are:

-the municipality's governing body’s agenda
-the governing body’s minutes

-budget information

-the municipality’s bylaws

-codes or ordinances

-the town meeting warrant and results (if applicable)

The municipalities honored today are:

Amesbury, Amherst, Andover, Arlington, Ashburnham, Ashland, Barnstable, Becket, Bedford, Bellingham, Belmont, Bolton, Boston, Boxborough, Brookline, Burlington, Cambridge, Carver, Charlton, Chatham, Chelmsford, Chelsea, Chilmark, Concord, Dalton, Dedham, Dennis, Dudley, Dunstable, Duxbury, East Longmeadow, Eastham, Easton, Egremont, Everett, Falmouth, Fitchburg, Freetown, Gardner, Gill, Gloucester, Haverhill, Holden, Holland, Holliston, Holyoke, Hopkinton, Hudson, Ipswich, Kingston, Lakeville, Leominster, Littleton, Longmeadow, Lowell, Malden, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Marlborough, Mashpee, Maynard, Melrose, Methuen, Millbury, Milton, Monterey, Nantucket, Needham, Newburyport, Newton, Norfolk, North Andover, North Reading, Northampton, Northborough, Northbridge, Orange, Orleans, Otis*, Paxton, Pembroke, Pepperell, Provincetown, Reading, Rockland, Rockport, Salem, Salisbury, Sandwich, Saugus, Scituate, Sharon, Sheffield, Somerville, South Hadley, Southwick, Springfield, Sterling, Sturbridge, Sudbury, Sutton, Tewksbury, Topsfield, Upton, West Boylston, West Springfield, Westford, Westminster, Weston, Westwood, Weymouth, Wilbraham, Williamstown, Winchester, Winthrop, Woburn, Worcester, and Wrentham.

The recipients of e-Government Awards with Distinction are:

Amherst, Andover, Arlington, Bolton, Boston, Burlington, Chatham, Chelmsford, Concord, Dedham, Duxbury, East Longmeadow, Easton, Falmouth, Freetown, Gardner, Gill, Gloucester, Haverhill, Ipswich, Kingston, Lakeville, Littleton, Lowell, Maynard, Methuen, Monterey, Nantucket, Needham, Newton, North Andover, North Reading, Provincetown, Reading, Salem, Salisbury, Sandwich, Springfield, Sterling, Sturbridge, Sudbury, Sutton, Tewksbury, West Boylston, Westford, Weston, Westwood, Weymouth, Worcester, and Wrentham.

» Back to Front Page

7 comments so far...

I have always found it unusual that all cities and towns do not post all financial and governing informations online. Trying to understand this reluctance only adds to the distrust of our local officials.
Beverly, Ma. should step up post all info for its' citizens to make responsible decisions regarding electing responsible and qualified representatives.

Posted by chuck berry March 19, 09 01:23 PM

For the record, many/most of Reading's municipal departments never post their agendas and minutes online.

Posted by MiloT March 19, 09 02:58 PM

Hamilton/Wenham should as well. It is about time we get some transparency to figure out where our money is being bled off.

Posted by Steve March 19, 09 03:51 PM

This article assumes the issue is a reluctance to share info. Perhaps the issue is funds. Municipalities, strapped with unfunded mandates from the state, coupled with massive decline in local aid, might not have the funds to hire an MIS employee to constantly update the website. It's not exactly an "essential service", like firefighting or policing or education.

Posted by Grego March 19, 09 03:53 PM

It’s completely understandable to the city and towns are light years behind the private sector in terms of technology and use of technology. Our local officials only care about votes, but that is not the problem here. The problem is public workers lack the skills needed to make leap to the online era. (Let’s not even bring up how unsecure all of that information would be online.) If you replace these workers with ones that have the skills what do you do with the current obsolete employees?

I would love to see all current employees retrained for jobs that actually exist in the private sector, but politicians do not have the gall to suggest this for the risk of losing votes.

Posted by Marc March 19, 09 04:23 PM

The problem is technological illiteracy. City and town government is full of people who have held the same position for decades and have not kept their skills current. Uploading documents to the web takes very little time or effort, and can be done for free--no fancy web development needed--in today's environment--through vehicles such as Google groups and archive.org.

Posted by Mary March 20, 09 09:13 AM

I reckon that being transparent to voters is the most critical service of any elected body. Without transparency how can voters ensure that elected officials are adequately funding and managing essential services?

Posted by Craig Thomler March 20, 09 05:51 PM