WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 2207

Relates to payment by the state of certain costs associated with the psychiatric examination of defendants to determine mental fitness

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Peter Oberacker and 2 co-sponsors

Massachusetts agencies must create and enforce public IG plans for all data, with retention, privacy, disposal rules, redaction standards, and AG enforcement.

REFERRED TO CODES
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 2207

Bill Summary — S 2207

Bill number: S 2207
Title (as filed): An Act regarding information governance
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth of Massachusetts (One Hundred and Ninety-Fourth General Court, 2025–2026)
Introduced: 1/17/2025 (docketed) — Presented by Senator Rebecca L. Rausch
Current recorded status (from provided materials): Referred to committee(s) (entries show referral to State Administration and Regulatory Oversight and to Codes; hearing scheduled 06/24/2025; later “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance” — see “Notes/Discrepancies” below)

Note on materials provided: the packet includes multiple, inconsistent text excerpts (a Massachusetts “information governance” bill, a fragment amending the Internal Revenue Code to define “digital asset,” and a separate title line about psychiatric exam payments). This summary focuses on the Massachusetts “information governance” text (the primary bill text included). Brief summaries of the unrelated fragments are included at the end.

Purpose and intent

The bill requires Massachusetts state agencies and municipalities that are subject to the Commonwealth’s public records law to adopt, maintain, and enforce formal Information Governance (IG) plans. The intent is to improve management of documents and data (of any format), promote efficient retention and routine disposal, ensure compliance with retention schedules, and clarify public access and allowable redactions.

Key provisions

  • Definitions

    • Establishes an “information governance plan” (IG plan) as a comprehensive set of protocols for retention and routine disposal of documents and data in any format, whether or not those materials are public records.

  • IG plan requirements (minimum elements)

    • Each covered agency/municipality must create, implement, maintain, and enforce an IG plan.
    • Required protocols must address: storage, file naming, privacy, security, routine disposal, methods to halt disposal when necessary, and appropriate sharing of documents/data.

  • Compliance with retention schedules

    • IG plans must comply with the state records retention schedule published and maintained by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

  • Public status and redaction

    • The IG plan itself is designated a public record. Portions that are exempt from disclosure under clause twenty-sixth of section 7 of Chapter 4 (e.g., records protected by attorney–client privilege, work product doctrine, or other recognized doctrinal protections) may be redacted prior to public production.
    • Separately, the bill amends Chapter 4, Section 7 (clause 26) by adding a subclause explicitly noting materials protected by attorney–client privilege, work product doctrine, or other doctrinal protections from disclosure.

  • Enforcement

    • Enforcement of the IG plan requirement is assigned to the Massachusetts Attorney General.

Who is affected

  • Directly: All state agencies and municipalities that are subject to Massachusetts public records law (Chapter 66 and clause twenty-sixth of Section 7, Chapter 4).
  • Indirectly: Records officers, municipal and agency IT departments, legal counsel, public records requesters, and the Attorney General’s office (enforcement).
  • Public transparency: Increased access to agency IG plans (subject to allowable redactions) and more systematic records disposal practices.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Operational costs and workload: Agencies and municipalities will need staff time, legal review, and IT support to develop and maintain compliant IG plans and to implement systems for storage, naming, disposal, and halt procedures.
  • Records management and risk mitigation: Standardized IG plans can reduce excessive retention, improve privacy/security practices, and reduce litigation risk by clarifying when disposal is halted.
  • Transparency vs. privilege: Requiring IG plans to be public increases transparency, but the bill allows redaction of privileged/protected portions; agencies will need clear redaction protocols.
  • Enforcement: The Attorney General’s oversight suggests potential for complaints, enforcement actions, or guidance development.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Docket filing: 1/17/2025 (Senate Docket No. 2206 / Bill No. 2207).
  • Provided legislative actions include a hearing scheduled 06/24/2025 and referrals to various committees (State Administration and Regulatory Oversight; Codes; Committee on Finance). The provided record contains inconsistent or duplicate entries — consult the official Massachusetts Legislature website for current status and committee report.

Additional notes — inconsistent/other materials included

  • The materials supplied also include:
    • A fragment of U.S. Internal Revenue Code amendments defining “digital asset” and “actively traded digital asset” (would add new paragraphs defining digital assets recorded on cryptographically secured distributed ledgers; carve outs for representations of financial assets and treatment of digital assets representing other property).
    • A separate bill title line referencing state payment of costs for psychiatric examinations of defendants — this appears unrelated to the IG bill text included.
    • Sponsor list and some sponsor names provided (e.g., Rebecca L. Rausch as the Massachusetts sponsor). Other sponsor names in the packet (federal senators such as Cynthia Lummis, Bill Cassidy, Marsha Blackburn) appear to refer to different federal legislation and are likely included in error.

Recommendation

Because the submission contains conflicting content, verify the authoritative bill text and current status on the Massachusetts Legislature website (or contact the bill sponsor’s office). If you want, I can fetch and compare the official filed text and the current committee actions and provide an updated, authoritative summary.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.