“Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink,” legendary 19th century ward boss Martin Lomasney advised young politicians.
That was long before cellphones and those now ubiquitous text messages that are part of everyone’s daily life.
That, of course, includes Mayor Michelle Wu, who having disregarded Lomasney’s advice, told the Globe editorial board recently that she texted with city developers, touching off a brouhaha over whether those texts are public records and, therefore, subject to public disclosure.
The administration now insists that, as Grace Jung, city director of public records, put it, “The City of Boston does not conduct official business by text message” and that “any work-related text messages” are then, by the city’s definition, “transitory in nature.”
That is little more than an attempted end run around the state’s public records law, which treats all written communications by public officials as a matter of public record, including, under a 2017 update, all electronic records.
“I have personal sit-downs with developers. I can show you my text messages right now,” Wu told the Globe editorial board last month, when asked about her perceived contentious relationship with developers.
So the Globe news department (which operates separately from the editorial pages) decided to take her up on her offer and filed a public records request for those texts with developers, getting an official no-can-do from Jung.
The controversy isn’t a new one for the city.
Former mayor Marty Walsh actually fessed up to deleting text messages from his official city phone — messages that had been requested by the Globe and a Northeastern University journalism class. That probably constituted a violation of state regulations, which require that “no electronic record should be disposed of if it is subject to a public record request or likely to be subject to a dispute, audit, investigation, or litigation, or subject to other legal retention requirements, regardless of the public status of the record.”
Walsh also denied a public records request by the Globe for text messages relative to the city’s short-lived bid for the 2024 Olympics with remarkably similar language to that used by the current administration. It too insisted no “substantive business” was conducted via text message and that the Walsh administration lacked the “technical capacity” to make copies of the text messages.
It’s the issue of retention that another Wu administration official said has driven city policy over text message usage.
Because “the city has no mechanism to retain” all the text messages to and from every city official — as it does with email — “we maintain a policy that we don’t conduct official city business over text,” the official said.
That’s not to say the policy has never been violated, the official conceded.
There is also a body of evidence that text messages on city-issued cellphones actually are retrievable — and certainly would be subject to a court order in the event of civil or criminal litigation.
In fact, when a top aide to the mayor, Segun Idowu, chief of economic opportunity and inclusion, was accused of possible sexual misconduct by fired city worker Marwa Khudaynazar, an investigation by an outside law firm did indeed include a look at text messages exchanged by both parties, according to a brief memo made public at the conclusion of the probe, which cleared Idowu of violating city policy.
Public records laws exist for a reason even Lomasney would have understood — and no doubt disapproved of. They exist largely to help keep politicians and all public officials honest. The public disclosure of those records and those conversations is often a powerful weapon against corruption.
The current controversy over records shouldn’t be just about the mayor, or about pesky reporters or private citizens wanting an inside look at how business is conducted in the city.
Imagine the scenario where a disgruntled developer — or any kind of business bidding on a city contract — suspected insider dealing and filed a lawsuit, seeking text messages from the relevant department official.
The issue is not a hypothetical one.
Text messages to a state employee did become an issue in the previously halted bidding process for new service plazas on the Massachusetts Turnpike. A lawsuit filed by the unsuccessful bidder charged there was an “improper” communication during the bidding process.
By Monday Wu was insisting, as she did on WBUR, “There’s no text message that is negotiating a deal or asking for any kind of work-related matter whatsoever,” she said. “I’m very careful about that.”
But Wu can’t have it both ways. She’s the one who claimed the messages showed her rapport with developers. If that’s the case, then the exchanges were clearly related to city business — developers don’t text the mayor’s direct line to talk about the weather — and should be released.
The city should enforce its own rules against conducting official business over text. But when that policy is violated, it should be prepared to treat those texts like the public records they clearly are.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.