transparency

The debate about the transparency of the legislative process on Beacon Hill continues.  Lack of transparency was noted during this past year while the budget was being debated behind closed doors.  Our legislators said this process was necessary for the Senate and House to decide on a compromise bill.  Did the public really have a choice?  What about other major decisions?  What about public hearings, when the public testifies on the issues before the committee members...who aren't present (many times waiting 3-5 hours to speak in front of 2-3 committee members of perhaps a total of 14-17)? 

A survey by the Boston University State House program of 19 major legislative committees that shape and move legislation found this process increasingly takes place outside the public view.  [The Milford Daily News]

Among the findings:

• The staff for 15 of the committees polled said some voting is done through emails rather than in open executive sessions. The staff of 10 committees said the votes were not available to the public. State law requires that roll-call votes in executive sessions be recorded and made public. But committee rules do not address email voting.

• Minutes and other details of committee meetings were not available from 18 of the committees, according to their staff. State law does not require such documentation of legislative committees, although it is required by other Massachusetts commissions and boards.

• Among the lack of documentation are records of attendance by committee members. Observers say fewer committee members now show up for public hearings as the work of the committees takes place through phone discussion or email polls.

And here's more about legislative debate, in general: ...neutral observers such as [Michael] Widmer note a trend toward more control emanating from the offices of the House speaker and Senate president.

“I wouldn’t say that this session has had less debate than recent years, but part of the trend towards more power in the leadership has been less floor debate, particularly in the House,” said Widmer. “A lot of the debates are taking place in the legislative caucuses behind closed doors.”

The Commonwealth may perhaps do legislation better than some states, but we can clearly be more transparent and accountable to the public than we are currently.

The New York Times conducted research on virtual schools, focusing on K12, Inc.  What they found is not encouraging for us who care about quality education for our children and who are also concerned about the dwindling funds available for public education.

Here's some startling quotes about the funding:

“What we’re talking about here is the financialization of public education,” said Alex Molnar, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education who is affiliated with the education policy center. “These folks are fundamentally trying to do to public education what the banks did with home mortgages.”

Here's less encouraging information about the performance of these virtual schools:

A Stanford University group, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, tracked students in eight virtual schools in Pennsylvania, including Agora, comparing them with similar students in regular schools. The study found that “in every subgroup, with significant effects, cyber charter performance is lower.”

Devora Davis, the center’s research manager, said the group’s analysis of Pennsylvania online schools showed that students were slipping. “If they were paired with a traditional public schools student, the public school student kept their place in line, and the cyberstudent moved back five spots,” she said.

School choice and privatization are hot political issues.  But educational rights, equitable and quality education for all our children, is the 1964 civil rights movement of the 21st century.  We need to provide better education for all our children.  It's certainly not about profits for the corporations.

MA State Treasurer Steven Grossman has been working hard to make sure we can see how the state spends the money it receives from us (and other sources).  He's going to unveil this website today, December 5th.  This is a good thing!

...Grossman, Secretary of Administration and Finance Jay Gonzalez and state Comptroller Martin Benison will announce the launch of the official Massachusetts Open Checkbook site.  [The Boston Globe]

Now that the casino legislation has passed through the State House and the Governor signed it, it's time for implementation...and there's lots of details to get right from the beginning.

The law also requires the state police to set up their own gaming enforcement unit. The as-yet-unnamed five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission will help coordinate the policing units. The commission will have its own investigation and enforcement bureau with the power to issue subpoenas and refer cases for civil or criminal prosecution.

An anti-casino group led by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger has argued for even stronger centralized control, saying the fracturing of law enforcement oversight among multiple agencies creates a potential logistical and communications nightmare.

One of the more challenging tasks created by the casino law is enforcement of the state's liquor laws, in part because casinos will be able to serve free drinks on the gaming floors. No other business in the state is allowed to so serve free alcoholic drinks.  [Mass live.com]

Public officials should know by now that transparency is especially critical in the redistricting process.  In Boston, the draft plan has Chinatown split into different voting districts.  This may seem to benefit the current Councilor, Bill Linehan, who narrowly won his office by less than 100 votes over a challenger from Chinatown.  To complicate the matter further, Councilor Linehan is part of the group recommending this redistricting plan.

At last -- local community activists' good work doing public education that made the decision process open and transparent was successful.  Here is the article from the Globe in part. 

After more than 12 years of planning, Concord and Carlisle may have a new high school in 2015.

Residents in the two towns voted yesterday to support a tax increase to pay for a new $92.5 million Concord-Carlisle Regional High School.

In both towns, 84 percent of the voters supported the Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion, while 16 percent were opposed. In Concord, the vote was 3,571 to 659 in favor, while Carlisle voted 965 to 184.

“On behalf of all the building committee and School Committee members over the past 12 years, I would like to thank the citizens of Concord and Carlisle for their overwhelming support of education,’’ said Jerry Wedge, a member of the Concord-Carlisle Regional School Committee and the high school building committee.

We all should be asking the same questions that are in this opinion piece...why all the secrecy around the casino legislation.  Isn't it time for more transparency?  Isn't it time to break the mold on the tired response...'but we've always had closed door conference committee sessions'?

Besides, this is a matter of public interest, and there’s simply no good reason to hide it from the public. There are no national security considerations here. Conference committee members shouldn’t be making any deals in private they’d be ashamed to have made public. [Full Opinion: Enterprise news]

Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts , is doing great work that benefits all the people in MA, reminding us that we shouldn't just rubber stamp legislation proposed by elected and appointed officials.  We need to be confident that all elected and appointed officials are operating ethically and transparently.  It seems that Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, perhaps wasn't operating quite up to that standard...otherwise why would he feel the need to sell his casino stock after The Boston Globe questioned him - over one year after its purchase?  

Bialecki said the stocks were bought by a financial advisor in August 2010 without his knowledge. When he later learned of the purchases, Bialecki said, he did not think the holdings posed a problem because he didn’t pick the stocks ; they accounted for only a small percentage of his portfolio; and he doesn’t expect to award any of the casino licenses.  [Full Article: The Boston Globe]