Governor Healey should disclose her out-of-state trips in advance

Governor Maura Healey needs to find a better balance between her pursuit of privacy and security and the public’s legitimate right to basic and timely information about their governor’s whereabouts.

Upon taking office, Healey had promised to bring more transparency “than ever before” to the governor’s office. That, however, has certainly not been the case when it comes to her out-of-state travels.

In November, she decided not to apprise the media about upcoming out-of-state travels but only to make her trips public afterward by including them in her calendar, which reporters can periodically request to see.

A February out-of-state trip initially became public not because Healey’s office had informed her constituents or the press that she was leaving the Commonwealth, but rather because Secretary of State William Galvin disclosed that the governor’s power had been transferred to him, since both Healey and Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll had left the state. Healey’s team refused to say where she had gone, declaring it was a personal trip.

Amid the media attention that came after the Globe’s Matt Stout reported on the secrecy shrouding that excursion, Healey doubled down on her refusal to disclose any travel, official or private, in advance. However, her office said she will henceforth divulge her private travel as she does her official out-of-state excursions — which is to say, after the fact.

“The location of her out-of-state travel will be available to media upon request in her calendar at the end of each month,” Healey spokesperson Karissa Hand told the editorial board via email.

Now, let’s be clear. Healey and her partner have legitimate security concerns. These are very polarized times. They are a same-sex couple, which creates extra enmity among some. Further, unlike most states, Massachusetts has no official governor’s residence, fenced off and set comfortably back from the road and with time-tested security systems and protocols. The state should consider acquiring such a residence. That, however, would not solve the short- and medium-term problems.

Balanced against Healey’s desire for secrecy as a security tool is the public’s, and the media’s, legitimate interest in knowing where their governor is traveling ahead of time whenever she is leaving the state in her official capacity as governor. When Healey is out of state, gubernatorial power transfers to Driscoll — and if she’s gone, to Galvin, and after that to the attorney general, treasurer, or auditor. Massachusetts citizens have a right to know who is wielding the power of the Corner Office at any given period. That knowledge is also important for other elected officials who regularly interact with the administration.

Also there are times when voters might disagree with a trip planned for a particular time. They can’t express that disagreement effectively if they don’t know until afterward that the governor has gone on such an expedition.

Advance notice is also important for proper coverage of the governor, which should matter not just to

The balancing of security and transparency would be best achieved by increasing the security the state provides Healey and her family, both at their residence and when they are traveling.

the media but to Massachusetts citizens as well. Let’s say Healey is attending a National Governors Association meeting or a Democratic Governors Association confab. Reporters might well want to travel to the same gathering to see what she has to say and how she is received. Coverage of that sort was important when then-Governor Mitt Romney was testing the waters for a presidential run.

The balancing of security and transparency would be best achieved by increasing the security the state provides Healey and her family, both at their residence and when they are traveling.

If Healey needs a larger security detail in either instance, she certainly should have one. And in those times when she has is traveling without her partner, there should be a security detail with the state’s chief executive as well as one at their residence.

That would of course hike security costs, but in the grand scheme of things, those expenses are small, and everyone of good will should want the governor and her family to be well-protected.

Such adjustments should clear the way for the governor to reveal all her travel prospectively, as well as the destination and purpose of her official travel.

When it comes to vacation or private travel, there is little reason why anyone needs to know the exact location where she plans to travel. But again, since gubernatorial power is transferred when she leaves the state, citizens do deserve to know who is exercising the considerable powers of the governor’s office at any given moment.

The best way forward here is by stepping up security, not cutting back on transparency.