5 groups, including ACLU, call on Worcester to restore online checkbook after T&G report

WORCESTER — Five organizations that scrutinize government affairs are calling for the city to restore access to its online checkbook following reporting on its removal by the Telegram & Gazette.

“On behalf of the ACLU of Massachusetts, Common Cause, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, MassPIRG, and the New England First Amendment Coalition, we write to raise serious concerns about your decision to end the City of Worcester’s Open Checkbook program and ask you to reverse course and restore the program as soon as practicable,” the groups wrote in a March 13 letter to City Manager Eric D. Batista.

The letter was sent four days after the T&G reported that the city, citing cybersecurity concerns, said it would not be restoring access to its open checkbook website, a portal where the public could see the sums of money paid out by the city to vendors on behalf of taxpayers.

The decision means that, while still available through record requests, the public can no longer instantly see and sort, as it could for years, swaths of information on spending, from large street improvement contracts or insurance payouts to court judgments or smaller expenditures on office supplies.

In explaining his administration's decision, Batista wrote to the T&G that the city is concerned about the rise in online cybersecurity and fraud, saying the city had experienced a past fraud attempt and citing reporting about a hacking event in Pennsylvania.

In their letter, the ACLU and others questioned the Pennsylvania example, saying the federal government found the hack was the result of “basic cybersecurity failures pertaining to passwords and network issues, not the consequence of any government transparency program.

“We appreciate your well-founded concern about cybersecurity threats to city government, particularly given the rise of artificial intelligence and the associated risks to critical infrastructure. But government secrecy about something as foundational as government expenditures is not the answer to these problems,” they wrote. “Indeed, we are unable to identify a single cybersecurity authority that recommends such drastic action as ending open access to public financial information as a means of preempting hacking threats.”

The information the city is declining to post and has not posted for at least a year cuts to fiscal transparency, the groups wrote — the “hallmark” of open government.

“Taxpayers, journalists and civil society organizations must have access to information about government expenditures to ensure government is functioning appropriately, without corruption or mismanagement,” they wrote. “While cybersecurity is a serious issue and should be prioritized by government at every level, there is nothing about Open Checkbook data that poses a unique cybersecurity threat.”

As the T&G reported, other large cities including Boston still post their information online, as does the state, which is required to do so by statute.

A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which dubs itself the voice of cities and towns in Massachusetts, wasn’t familiar enough with Batista’s concerns to weigh in last month and the organization again declined to comment Tuesday.

The city has yet to provide the T&G with an example of other towns that have made the same decision as Worcester.

Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts, told the T&G Tuesday she has not heard of any other city making the decision Worcester made.

Crockford said she was alarmed after reading the T&G’s story and was able to quickly gather a number of groups, from open government and budget groups, to agree on a letter.

Crockford said her research, which included speaking to a cybersecurity expert, yielded no evidence of online security being cited as a reason by governments to not publish open data portals.

“If it was the case that there’s evidence that open data programs at the municipal level really were causing serious cybersecurity issues, we’d be having a different conversation,” she said. “I think it’s pretty disturbing. It’s using people’s fears about something that is real — hacking, cybersecurity issues — to justify taking a step backward in terms of local government transparency.”

In their letter, the organizations noted that Batista’s administration has pledged both fiscal responsibility and transparency.

“Yet absent access to Open Checkbook data, it is very difficult for residents to assess how effectively the city is meeting its goals,” they wrote. “Reversing course on a successful open government program that was in place for over a decade cuts against your stated commitment to transparency.”

The groups ended their letter, which they copied to the City Council, writing: “It does not reflect well on Worcester, and it does a disservice to its residents, to plunge the city’s finances into darkness.

“Cutting off access to basic information about how residents’ tax dollars are spent is unwarranted and unwise, and we urge you to promptly restore public access to this vital information.”

Crockford said she hasn’t heard from Batista or any councilors since sending the letter.

Asked whether Batista could speak by phone on the topic Tuesday, a spokesperson for Batista, Tom Matthews, provided the following statement:  “We appreciate the position taken by ACLU of Massachusetts, Common Cause, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, MassPIRG and the New England First Amendment Coalition; however, the municipality still has concerns, both policy and logistical, which are being deliberated.”

The T&G sent an email to all city councilors Tuesday morning asking for comment on the letter. District 1 Councilor Jenny Pacillo was the sole councilor to respond as of 5:30 p.m.

“Transparency is really important to me, and I hope the city can work to find a way to put this back online,” Pacillo said in a phone call.

Mayor Joseph M. Petty, after the T&G first inquired on the topic March 8, put an agenda item on the council’s March 12 meeting asking Batista for more information on the decision.

The council March 12 approved the request after about 10 minutes of discussion. Petty said he understood the city’s reasoning but asked whether some accommodation could be made to put more information online.

Councilor-at-Large Morris A. Bergman asked whether information could be released after some time had passed to mitigate concerns. District 3 Councilor George Russell said he believed that as a minimum, city councilors ought to have access to the information, and members of the public, perhaps by showing identification, should have access to the information through a computer at City Hall.

Batista told councilors he was open to discussing the topic further and believed a broader discussion on cybersecurity for the council — to be held in executive session as a result of security concerns — might be in order.

Crockford said while she doesn’t want Worcester to set a trend for other cities in removing access to online financial information, she isn’t overly concerned because she believes its justification “makes very little sense.

“I don’t think it’s going to stand up to scrutiny,” she said. “But certainly we don’t want other cities to look at this and think, ‘That’s a great excuse to shelve this program,’” she added, out of a desire to avoid public scrutiny.

Crockford noted journalists, as well as the ACLU and others, use such databases regularly in their work.

She said the basic financial transparency function should be concerning to everyone, regardless of profession or political affiliation.

“Transparency is one of those things left, right and center expect as a foundational requirement for living in an open and free society,” she said.

Crockford said not making financial information available online makes it harder for the public to scrutinize the government’s actions to make sure, for instance, contracts aren’t being improperly awarded on the basis of personal or familial relationships.

“This is pretty basic stuff,” she said. “We want to make sure our governments aren’t corrupt or mismanaged.”

The T&G reached out to the state comptroller's office, which has posted the same kind of information online for years as a result of a mandate from state lawmakers, for comment for this story.

Comptroller William McNamara was unable to speak by phone Tuesday, a spokesperson said. McNamara wrote in a statement that his office “strives to maintain a balance between the legitimate interests of information security and transparency.

“It is our statutory obligation to provide information on statewide spending; it is also incumbent upon us to do so in a way that keeps our information secure,” he wrote. “For the Office of the Comptroller that includes implementing controls and training to minimize the possibility that this information could be used for fraudulent purposes.

“We also stay abreast of developments in cyberfraud security and work with our systems partners to maintain a secure environment.”

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: ACLU, groups urge Worcester to restore online checkbook