Where's Maura?
Do public officials have a right to a private life?
Massachusetts state government has the dubious distinction of being one of the least transparent in the nation. The governor’s office (but not the cabinet agencies), the Legislature and the courts are shrouded in secrecy — either by practice or by law.
The public clearly has a desire and a right to know about the official actions of the people to whom we entrust the reins of government.
But does that extend to where they are vacationing or if they are dealing with personal issues?
The question arises as Governor Maura Healey has departed from tradition by declining to disclose where and when she leaves the state for personal reasons.
This followed a report by The Boston Globe that Healey failed to disclose a mid-February out-of-state trip with her family.
The state’s first lesbian governor says “it’s personal.”
"I continue to provide details about all of my work-related travel. I've also said that my personal life is my personal life and I'm going to work to make sure that privacy is maintained for my family," Healey said to reporters Monday.
It raises an uncomfortable question: does her sexual preference have anything to do with this apparent need to know?
It’s not the first time Healey failed to disclose personal information recently, triggering controversy. In naming then-Appeals Court Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian to a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court, the governor failed to mention the now-confirmed justice was a former life partner.
That can fairly be called an unforced error on her part. It was an official act and the likelihood of journalists not doing their due diligence in vetting a nominee was virtually nil.
It was also a very different situation than the one faced by former Senate President Stan Rosenberg, when his former partner abused their relationship and eventually pleaded guilty to assault.
But leaving town with her new partner and family is hardly official. And it’s not as if she was unreachable in an emergency. We are all available 24-7-365, like it or not, unless we turn off our devices — and there is no indication she did that.
Healey’s circumstances are also far different from those of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who was AWOL after undergoing prostate cancer surgery and a follow-up hospitalization.
The civilian leader of the nation’s military failed to tell anyone — a designated surrogate, let alone the President of the United States — that he was unable to carry out his job.
In his former job as four-star Army general that could have been considered dereliction of duty.
Massachusetts has a formal “succession” policy where the responsibility falls to the lieutenant governor if the boss leaves the state. The secretary of state becomes acting governor if both officials cross state lines.
We knew Secretary of State Bill Galvin was head honcho when Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll was away at the same time for what was described as “personal reasons.” Which she later revealed was the death of her father.
Healey's office used to regularly inform the press before she or Driscoll left the state. That policy changed in November, saying out-of-state travel would not be made public in advance, unlike the practice of previous governors.
"Due to security concerns, we will not be advising the Governor's travel in advance," spokeswoman Karissa Hand said at the time. "The Governor is engaged in her work at all times and keeps in constant communication with her team no matter where she is."
It’s hardly a red herring issue. Members of a right-wing militia were convicted of various charges in a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
And members of a Neo-Nazi group protested outside Healey’s home, for the second time, while she was out-of-state in February.
Healey can rightly be accused of backing away from her pledge of transparency when it comes to public records requests related to her official acts she takes as the state’s chief executive.
And an argument can be made about the delayed disclosure by House Speaker Ron Mariano that he had a pacemaker implanted while on a trip to Florida but continued to vote remotely as allowed by House rules in 2021.
Some open government advocates, like Mary Z. Connaughton, director of government transparency and chief operating officer at the Pioneer Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, seem to think there’s no such thing as a zone of personal privacy when it comes to elected officials.
“While it’s the governor’s call on what to disclose, this steady drop in transparency is hardly a way to engender strong bonds with the public,” said Connaughton, a former Republican candidate for state auditor. “So why the mystery?”
But to demand unfettered access to a public official’s life risks producing only candidates and office holders with narcissistic personalities who crave constant attention, good or bad.
Remind you of anyone?