The state’s Public Records Law has three major blind spots. The Legislature, which passed the initial law in 1851, exempted itself from the law’s reach in 1897. The judicial branch of government, citing the language of the law and its own regulations, claims its records are all off limits. And the governor’s office, relying on a 1997 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court, believes its records are also beyond the reach of the law.

Not long ago it was nearly impossible to get around these exemptions. Officials at the Probation Department, which is part of the state’s Trial Court, used to respond to requests for information with a letter saying they weren’t required to turn over any records. Even budget and salary information was considered off limits.

But now some officials in the Legislature, the courts, and the governor’s office voluntarily turn over documents and other information upon request. The Probation Department, in the wake of the hiring scandal there, often tries to be helpful.

Still, the voluntary process doesn’t always work smoothly. On March 31, for example, CommonWealth asked for any expense records connected with the governor’s trade mission that same month to Panama City and Mexico City.

Jamie Hoag, the governor’s deputy chief legal counsel, responded to the magazine’s request with a letter containing his office’s standard boilerplate:

“Please be advised that in Lambert v. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council . . ., the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Office of the Governor is not one of the instrumentalities enumerated in [the law] whose records are subject to disclosure. Notwithstanding Lambert, it is the voluntary practice of the office to consider and to respond to public records requests on a case-by-case basis.”

No one has challenged the governor’s interpretation of Lambert in court, but some advocates say the governor is interpreting the ruling much too broadly. The Lambert case focused on whether a questionnaire filled out by an applicant for a judgeship was a public record. The court did not rule that the governor’s office is totally immune from the Public Records Law, only that the personal questionnaires completed by applicants for judicial appointment and submitted to the governor through the Judicial Nominating Council are not public records.

Moreover, what the Lambert ruling ignored is the fact that the public records law applies to “any officer or employee of any . . . executive office. . . of the commonwealth.” The governor’s office is an executive office. In fact, the governor’s very own stationery says “Executive Department.”

Hoag sent an email on June 25 saying that he hoped to have the records available early the following week. During a meeting at the State House on July 8, however, Hoag backtracked, saying he didn’t know when the records would be ready.

Four months, or 122 days, after they were first requested, the records still haven’t been turned over.