Whatever you think of the present occupant of the Corner Office, there is no doubt that governors of Massachusetts are accountable to the people. Every four years, there is an election, and unlike many elections in Massachusetts (like, say, the elections for Register of Deeds or Clerk of Courts), races for governor always draw competition. In fact, the last time a governor had a relatively easy re-election battle was in 1994, when Bill Weld rode a resurgent economy, a Republican wave, and a fawning media to win a second term in 1994. 1998, 2002, and 2006 all featured interesting primaries and tough battles that either party could have won.
Governors, thus, are held accountable every four years. They may not always accomplish what the people want, but they have right incentives. They are not islands of unaccountability, unlike the many tiny fiefdoms in our state and municipal government that are run by people who are either actually appointed for life (judges) or whose election to obscure posts means they will be in office until retirement, a race for something else, appointment to another job, indictment, or death.
That’s why the Governor’s move to take over the Massachusetts Probation Department is a great idea.
There is no statutory or case law basis for the insular CJAM to control the function of guardian ad litem either. And in eliminating the entire class and role of Guardian Ad Litem for Education on just 24 hours notice on 1/14/2008, the CJAM and the judicial branch have shown a total disrespect for what guardians ad litem do, and for the well being of children.
<
p>Why not move GALs and their funding into the Office of the Child Advocate, which was specifically created to protect children?
Governor Patrick has let many down with both the inauspicious start to his term and his inability to deliver on his real estate tax pledge (admittedly made near impossible by the economic climate and the fact that it really is not within his control).
<
p>However, he seems to be setting up his re-election campaign as being against the problems in the legislature. This is a good idea as people are fed up with the “business as usual” approach to Beacon Hill. This proposal is a great first step in setting up this dichotomy with the legislature. It will force a series of potentially difficult votes for those facing challenges in either the primary or general.
<
p>I would also recommend that the Governor consider the following in the budget he presents:
<
p>1) Once again take back the amount left unspent in the legislative account. He tried this past fall and they voted it back in. Well do it again and dare them to keep the money for themselves at the expense of local aid, etc.
<
p>2) Eliminate the per diems for legislators coming to work. Not a large dollar amount, but most of the people in the Commonwealth do not get reimbursed to commute to work. Let the Governor show that he understands them and again dare the legislature to vote to keep these benefits for themselves.
<
p>3) Get rid of Bunker Hill Day, etc. Time has come for common sense. The Governor can show the people he understands what they go through.
<
p>He will need to coordinate the actions with a strong message to position his actions as for the people and tackling the abuses on Beacon Hill. This is something he can do and needs to start now.
<
p>I think he has an opportunity to do a lot of good for the Commonwealth and restoring some balance between the Governor and the Lege.
<
p>While I do not support everything that Patrick does, I appreciate some of his more recent actions such as combining the transportation functions and this new proposal. I wish him well in his efforts and support him in seeking solutions to our budget problems while minimizing the impact to much needed human services programs.
So what you are proposing that that Deval Patrick take on his own party in his quest for a second term. Splendid idea.
That may be the only way he can win
<
p>You find me another job where one is required to live in some town in Western Mass and required to show up to Boston to work. Per diems make sense precisely because we require legislators to live far away from Beacon Hill.
<
p>
<
p>Personally, I think they should eliminate all per diems within 25 miles of Beacon Hill (but provide each legislator with an all-access T pass), but outside of that it’s a bit unfair to demand the long commute but then not reimburse for it.
Would be something to have our reps and senators taking the T to Beacon Hill. From an environmental perspective, using public transportation is far more “environmentally responsible” and would help set a good example for constituents. It also may help with funding for the T if they dealt with the issue many of us confront every day.
<
p>There are jobs that require a commute and many people who do commute long distances to work. I can see your position if it wasn’t clear to the reps and senators when they ran for office that they would have to be in Boston. I am not opposed to some minimal reimbursement beyond a certain distance (more than 25 miles as that is roughly 495 which is something many people do everyday with no reimbursement so maybe 50 or 75), but should be as small as possible.
What jobs require a commute of 100+ miles and don’t provide a per diem/mileage? Furthremore, why should reps who live far away from Beacon Hill effectively be paid less (due to transportation) than those who live locally, even though they do the same job?
<
p>As for the T pass, I wouldn’t expect reps to take the T every day or, for many, even very often. After all, they often have to stay late, or don’t know quite when they’re heading home, or even heading straight home from the Hill. Still, just putting it in their pocket might get a few of ’em on the train once in a while, which couldn’t be a bad thing.
<
p>
<
p>If you’re looking to skim a little bit of perk money off the lege in a populist war on the legislature, I’d go after the leadership bonus money. The political parties have a vested interest in having leaders and whips, but it’s not clear that the people get any direct benefit. I might also go after any free parking that they get… no reason not to charge them market rate.
In, let’s say Sutton and works in Boston differ from a private sector employee who also lives in Sutton and works in Boston? Both know that they will need to commute when they take the job, but the rep gets paid for the commute and the employee does not. I think that some of these perks need to be rolled back.
<
p>As for the T, leaving at different times and not knowing when you leave is something that many people face. I agree that this would change as you move further and further from Boston, but I see no reason why any rep or senator who lives within the T’s subway and bus system should drive to work.
<
p>I had not considered the “bonus” money that is added to a vast number of reps and senators for whatever title they happen to hold. It is particularly galling that every member of the senate republican caucus receives a “leadership” bonus. Makes no sense and while I lean more towards that caucus, I think that they should not receive those bonuses either. Might work to start by reducing them.
<
p>These are hard times and it would help with the public to take on some of these “perks” of the Lege that seem to add no value to the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Most workers can choose to work near home or live near work. A legislator, however, must live in a certain district and must work at the Statehouse.
<
p>That’s a justification for a travel subsidy.
… navigates the labor market and is able to weigh the trade-offs between salary and distance. The elected rep’s job doesn’t exist in such a market and such considerations can’t be weighed.
Then, this great idea for promoting gubernatorial accountability quickly becomes a political albatross around Gov. Patrick’s neck and a Willie Horton-esque campaign issue for his political opponents.
<
p>A better idea would be to provide the Probation Department with the human and technological resources, first-class senior and middle managers, and improved training of its employees responsible for evaluating and tracking the criminal offenders under their purview.
At first glance this is the kind of actions that are long overdue. In hindsight, one can argue that Deval has attempted “reorganized” state government…merging the highway bureaucracies and now this. But the reality is they are a couple of trees being trimmed in the forest that have no rhyme of reason, other than being among the most sick and diseased.
<
p>Imagine the popular support Gov. Patrick would have had if he had given the electorate a broad vision of reforms during his first State of the State speech (and in ANY of his state of the State speeches) that proposed Pension reform, Police details, bureaucratic streamlining of the transportation, the court system, ect…? But instead the perception is that he’s been forced by political and budgetary realities and many of his “reforms” are viewed as appeasement to real reform (pension and police details).
The Governor did lay out his broad vision for reform in his 2009 State of the Commonwealth address, and in fact did accomplish the goals he laid out in that speech. Here is a quick 3+ minute video that makes your point:
<
p>
<
p>For updates or inside information on the Patrick campaign, follow me on Twitter @DougRubin
Doug:
I have three questions.
<
p>#1
When does the Governor start a dialog relative to fixing the deeply flawed chapter 70 formula that he has called “broken” on many occasions? See the Hyannis You Tube video below for background.
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>#2
Also, when does Governor Patrick convene the chapter 70 review commission outlined in chapter 70 section 4. Note that the Foundation Budget Review Commission has not met in 8 plus years.
<
p>
<
p>#3
Also, when will Governor Patrick step up and insure that the Gloucester Charter mess is resolved consistent with the wishes of the local officials in Gloucester, the Governor himself, and Paul Reville.
<
p>Thanks for your time.
Transportation and pension “reformed” passed were long overdue, debated for years and were not a focus of candidate Deval and frankly you can hardly call the pension changes “reform”, at best tinkering. The recent ed reform was more a reaction to getting fed dollars, than anything. Except for the Governor’s commendable efforts in green energy, very little of the accomplishments were part of an agenda/vision of candidate Deval and were more reactions to reality than anything else. Also, some of the “accomplishments” cited were really belly flops, such as the touting of local communities joining the GIC, which has been a whimper and not a bang.
<
p>I thank you for your response, and certainly candidate and Governor Patrick has always had a forward thinking vision of improving the Commonwealth. Unfortunately he’s been grudgingly dealing with the problems in the here and now and that may be the reason that you have your work cut out for you in the several 10 months.
The “Ed Reform” package that was just passed was not ed reform. Rep Pat Haddad, former Chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on Education made the following comment, “Ed reform is much bigger than this bill needs to be.” Neither the Governor or the Legislature has the stomach for real Ed Reform.
<
p>As for the GIC, that bit of legislation has been a profound failure. Tom Mennino himself has asked for legislation that would allow communitities to craft plan design outside the collective bargaining process. Until that happens, group health will continue to cripple municipalities.
<
p>Until those sorts of legislative fixes occur any dream of property tax relief is, in fact, a dream.
<
p>Oh what, pray tell, is “real Ed Reform” in your view? Try to keep the union bashing to a spittle-spraying level.
How about merit pay, a complete and honest assessment of the ch 70 formula, and a frank discussion about health insurance and pension benefits? Then we can move on to evaluate the need for certain unfunded mandates and an honest assessment of who should be paying for the SPED costs that need to be paid, but are bankrupting school districts. As for SPED, perhaps an honest discussion relative to whether SPED costs incurred by school districts are actually medical costs vs. educational costs.
<
p>Yes a bit of union “bashing” to use your terminology, but bit of reality and honesty mixed in. The merit argument is one that President Obama believes in, as do I. Most of the rest of what I have presented is necessary given the fiscal pressures on school districts. It’s only going to get worse, and yes, the Governor and the Legislature do not have the stomach for an honest discussion about ed reform.
The bill needs to be a particular size, but ed reform is bigger than that size?
<
p>Was the former Chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on Education using one of those refrigerator-magnet word sets to generate that comment?
The former Chair of the Joint Legislative Committee on Education was making the point that there is lots wrong with how we deliver and pay for public education. I happen to agree with her.
<
p>Haddad, Patricia A.
Rep.PatriciaHaddad@Hou.State.MA.US
617-722-2180
<
p>My town is joining right now, and the town’s operations budget will save $4.5M as a result. That’s not a profound failure for my town; that’s a profound success. The ability to skirt agreements the community has made with employees is not an ability they should have. Come to the table and make a deal — and then live up to your end of it.
<
p>
<
p>But look, even after both of those things happen, the dream of property tax relief is still a dream. Operation costs will still grow by more than 2.5% a year, particularly health care and energy. Capital costs are still there, and inflation outpaces 2.5%. Even with those cost-cutters, property tax isn’t going down; at best some 2.5 overrides won’t happen or will be delayed.
<
p>That’s why I like the public option taxes. Personally, I’d like to see one for gasoline: let each community decide yes/no to raise the tax 3 cents: 1 cent for mass transit, 1 cent for local roads, and 1 cent for local non-auto transit (sidewalks, curb cuts, bike lanes, multiuse paths, etc). The town “keeps” 2 of the 3 cents and that money directly offsets the property tax money they’re using for pavement.
But given the small % of the groups eligible to join and haven’t–mostly because of the high 70% approval bar set for a union vote–I’d call it a failure. What I wouldn’t call it is a “success” as the Governor has. I’m glad Brookline joined. By town’s workers are balking big time.
<
p>Even though it would SAVE them money every month by lowering their contributions, which would easily offset any increases in co-pays and such–they still perceive it as they are giving up something and want something back. In f*cking credible! Individually, they’ll save hundreds of dollars a year (at least) and they have (frankly) a thick-headed attitude that they should get some of the money the town saves. Thinking like that will lead us into ruin…hence my new name and tag-line.
and we’re arguing semantics here. Look, before the program, no muni employees could be in the GIC, and none were. Now, all “could” and some are. As a result, major dollars are being saved in some communities, with those savings typically going to both the workers and the muni budget.
<
p>How is that a failure? It’s not 351 successes, but it is some successes, and the rest of the communities are no worse off than they were before the program began.
The truth is that the legislature is playing, Massachusetts, the same “NO” game to substantive reform that the GOP is playing nationally. I would like to see Governor Patrick go to the people, name names, and kick butt. He (and we) know what the true story is, and neither the House nor Senate leadership is going to cooperate.
<
p>Governor Patrick’s “nice guy” collaborative approach with the lege has had the same effect that the Democrats had with the “welfare mother” issue until Bill Clinton finally did the right thing and solved the political — and policy — problem. There was widespread abuse of the AFDC system, and the reluctance of the Democrats to admit that abuse handed the GOP a generation of otherwise-Democratic votes.
<
p>There is a culture of corruption on Beacon Hill and in City Hall. Governor Patrick knows it, Doug Rubin knows it, Scott Brown and his new-found teabag mob know it, and Massachusetts voters know it. Martha Coakley tried to ignore it, and we see the result.
<
p>I would like to see Governor Patrick go to the people. It is absurd to allow the GOP to claim the populist high-ground, there is nothing populist in GOP policies or philosophy.
<
p>Massachusetts voters demand that the culture of corruption be stopped. I would like to see Governor Patrick leverage that demand to our collective benefit, rather than hand it to the rightwing to use against us.
we’d be stuck with how disappointed we’d be that he didn’t fix the whole state and every problem in his first year, like what is happening with Obama.
<
p>I’d rather the Gov, or anyone really, not bite off more than they can chew. The Gov has consistently been taking on reform, waging battle after battle, which is the only way to do it. Try to do it all at once and you’ll see how quickly the legislature (well the hack wing anyway) destroys any chance you have at any agenda whatsoever.
His polls numbers are in the low 30s exactly because he has not lived up to the rhetorical expectations he has set on the campaign trail.
In my mind, accountability means you are “accountable” for something. I keep hearing politicians say “I am accountable”, “The buck stops with me”, “it was my fault”… but then NOTHING happens. Most people shy away from being accountable for a problem because it used to mean you got reprimanded, suspended or FIRED! Nowadays, they step up to the honest “It’s my fault” microphone but never get the punishment. Let’s put punishment back into accountability.
<
p>Again, in my opinion, when someone says “it’s my fault” then they should be canned or be prepared at reelection to not complain when their opponents play that video for an ad.
JohnD:
Accountability is answering the above question that I asked Doug Rubin about education funding. The questions have been asked over and over and the Governor and his staff have failed time and time again to answer the questions. That’s accountability!
Right…because Baker or Mihos would be able to magically fix everything…hah.
<
p>If they are as ineffectual at stopping patronage and getting reform as the last three Republican Governors, we might as well have a post as Governor.
…all it means is taking the blame yourself rather than pointing fingers. It doesn’t necessarily require heads to roll.
Who broke the window? “It was me, sorry” and walk away smiling. Who stole the money? “It was me, I’m accountable” but then do nothing… you need punishment to go along with being accountable.
That’s how accountability works in a democracy. Pretty straightforward. If elected officials started resigning every time they made a boo-boo, government would cease to function. (I know, I know, that’s what you want. Ain’t gonna happen.)
I said the same above…
<
p>
<
p>I don’t want resignations for boo-boos but at some point either the severity of the boo-boo or the accumulation of them should be “actionable”.
Right. It is. That’s what elections are for.
<
p>So I don’t really understand your point in this thread.
They would apply to everyone and not just elected officials who admit “blame, fault or accountability”. Second I would say that the election or reelection should not be the only time for us to hold someone accountable. I don’t want to wait 6 years for a US Senator to be held accountable, especially if they stand up and admit “fault”. As I was saying, this lack of reprimanding is exactly why some pols are willing to say they are accountable.
are already beginning to emerge.
<
p>As with his support for local services, Patrick is drawing a clear line between him and the legislature.
<
p>These are big issues that form a thematic whole not hard to explain to the public.
<
p>What’s not clear is how far Patrick plans to take things.
<
p>Is he prepared to go to the mat on these priorities? Or is it ultimately okay from his point of view to lose to the Legislature on these issues, having gone through the motions of putting up a fight?