With a week to go before Massachusetts legislators pack up to go home for the holidays, there is just enough time to act on a long overdue bill to reform the state public records law. We can’t think of a better gift to constituents.

For a state that prides itself on being progressive, Massachusetts makes it extremely difficult for citizens — and the news media acting on their behalf — to gain access to information that should be readily available. The Gazette’s documented difficulties last year in getting routine records, including minutes from the Tisbury board of selectmen, in connection with the withdrawn Stop & Shop expansion proposal, is just one such example. A far more egregious instance reported by The Boston Globe had the Massachusetts state police seeking $2.7 million in response to a request for a database of breathalyzer tests.

The current public records law, shamefully outdated, actually received a failing grade from the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, which recently rated the fifty states on public access to government information. Massachusetts came in fortieth, ranking poorly in both written policy and actual practice.

This was supposed to be the year for reform. Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State William Galvin went on record early in support of overhauling the state public records law. A comprehensive bill was crafted by a coalition of civil rights and public watchdog groups, including the Massachusetts Publishers Association, of which the Gazette is a member. It was introduced by Northampton Rep. Peter Kocot, signed by a dozen others and appeared to have momentum.

This summer, the bill emerged with modest changes from the House Ways and Means Committee and appeared headed for a swift vote before it got stalled in July by aggressive lobbying by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, among other opponents.

A main thrust of the bill is to incorporate modern technology in the processing, presentation and disclosure of public records. The bill would also require state and local agencies to name a point person to handle records requests, rationalize fees for obtaining public records by having them reflect actual costs and provide a speedy and effective process for appeal.

Long wary of legislation that imposes new unfunded mandates on cities and towns, the municipal association is off base on this issue, a point that was made this week by Rep. Timothy Madden, the Cape and Islands representative, who understands his constituency better than most and supports the bill.

The bill has safeguards against unreasonable requests, and offers a blueprint for providing information electronically, a step that should be cost-saving, not costly. More to the point, as Mr. Madden told the Gazette this week, citizens are demanding change. “If it costs us more, well they have to pay the bills. But it’s very clear that we should be doing this,” he said.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo has said he expects to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote next week. Now is the time for meaningful reform. Let your legislators know that transparency matters.