the patronage scandal at the state’s Probation Department is prompting calls for all sorts of hiring reforms, but there is also a growing chorus of voices pushing for changes in the Public Records Law.

“No matter how this goes, the public records issue has to be addressed,” says former attorney general Scott Harshbarger, who was appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court to lead a probation task force. “That’s got to change.”

Gov. Deval Patrick introducing Roderick Ireland as his choice for chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court.

Probation, as part of the judicial branch of government, views itself as exempt from the Public Records Law, the state’s counterpoint in the federal Freedom of Information Act.. Over the years, the agency has used that exemption to turn down numerous requests for information. CommonWealth, for example, in July 2008 sought a list of all probation employees, their job titles, their salaries, and who recommended them for their posts. But the agency rejected the request three days later, saying judicial records are not subject to the law.

Harshbarger, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, filed a request in 2008 for aggregated statistical data on the handling of youthful offenders. Harshbarger says his request was also turned down, along with many others that would have yielded information that could have been helpful to the larger criminal justice community. “For 10 to 12 years, they were secretive,” he says of the Probation Department.

Roderick Ireland, the newly appointed chief justice of the SJC, isn’t ruling out support for extending the reach of the Public Records Law to the judicial branch. “Applying the state’s Public Records Law to the courts would involve complex issues which require thoughtful consideration,” he says in a statement. “There are many factors that would need to be carefully examined, and I would want to take time to deliberate on these issues before offering my views.”

As CommonWealth previously reported (“Paper Tiger,” Fall ‘08), the Public Records Law is riddled with exemptions and exceptions that can reduce its effectiveness. The Legislature exempted itself from the law in 1897. The judicial branch is exempted from the law by regulation and a series of court cases. Even Gov. Deval Patrick’s legal advisors say case law exempts the governor’s office, although aides say Patrick voluntarily complies with most records requests. In addition, there are at least 70 other exceptions cutting off access to specific types of records.

No one has filed legislation yet to amend the Public Records Law, but momentum appears to be building for change.

Secretary of State William Galvin, whose office oversees the Public Records Law, said through his spokesman that he would like to see the courts, the Legislature, and the governor all covered by the law.

Sen. Brian Joyce, a Milton Democrat who cochairs the Legislature’s State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee and is also serving on another probation task force, says he is in favor of amending the Public Records Law so it would apply to all branches of government. “I suspect everything is on the table,” he says.

Joyce and others say safeguards need to be built in as the law is expanded so a judge’s case notes and communications with his clerks would not be subject to a public records request. Harshbarger agrees, adding that he thinks the law could be crafted to satisfy such concerns.

Other issues are likely to surface if lawmakers revamp the Public Records Law. Galvin’s spokesman, Brian McNiff, says the secretary would like to see enforcement of the law handled by his office; currently, Galvin’s office rules on appeals when agencies refuse to turn over records but, by law, enforcement is left to the attorney general. The two offices often don’t see eye to eye.

Attorney-client privilege is one area where the two offices disagree. Public officials often claim attorney-client privilege in order to shield records from public scrutiny. Attorney General Martha Coakley has told Galvin’s office that he “does not have the authority to issue decisions as to whether documents are or may contain attorney-client communications.” That authority, she says, belongs to the courts. But Galvin’s office has ignored Coakley, defiantly writing in the guide to the Public Records Law that his office will determine cases of attorney-client privilege on a case-by-case basis.

Some of the exemptions to the Public Records Law are controversial. One such commonly used exemption by public officials is known as the deliberative process exemption, in which documents that are part of an ongoing public policy development process are considered off limits to public access.

Coakley, for example, recently declined to provide CommonWealth with certain records involving her investigation of the conduct of Paul Levy, the president and CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, saying, “Information regarding ongoing policy development regarding the regulation of not-for-profit organizations will not be released.”

Coakley did agree to release other records from her investigation, but she wanted to charge $1,353.

The Public Records Law doesn’t mandate the posting of records online, but state officials appear to be moving in that direction. This year’s budget requires that the state establish a website that provides comprehensive, searchable information on the state budget and how the state is spending its money. There will also be information about tax credits granted to businesses: the identity of the businesses, the amounts, and the dates the credits were issued.

“If the law is implemented the way it’s supposed to be, the website will make transparent, in checkbook detail, much of the state spending and revenue sources for all state agencies, including the 42 quasi-public agencies,” says Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for MassPIRG, which lobbied hard for the website.

In January 2009, the Governor’s Task Force on Public Integrity issued its report, which eventually led to the passage of an ethics reform law last year. In its report, the task force chose not to recommend changes in the Public Records Law, saying the issue was “worthy of future discussion and consideration.” With many officials calling for such a discussion, now may be the time.