According to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Tom Reilly announced that he would open regional Governor’s offices when elected:
BOSTONâ Local officials and residents would not have to go to Boston to reach the governorâs staff under a proposal from Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to open four regional offices of the governor across the state.
Mr. Reilly, one of three Democratic candidates for governor, said if elected he would open up satellite offices in Worcester, the Merrimack Valley, and Western and Eastern Massachusetts to provide direct contact with the governorâs staff for residents, community organizations and municipal officials.
âItâs a model he established as attorney general,â said Reilly campaign spokesman Corey Welford of Mr. Reillyâs decision to open regional offices after he was elected attorney general seven years ago. He said the proposal would have minimal cost as the governorâs office already has constituent services staff on Beacon Hill who could be reassigned to offices in existing state and municipal buildings.
The full story is here.
This is an idea that is long overdue. As somebody who has handled constituent services, I can tell you countless stories of individuals who arrive at the doors of government with piles of paper and a desperate need for assistance. Living outside of Greater Boston should not represent an insurmountable bar people who need help. While e-government is a good idea and undoubtedly provides greater efficiency, too many of our neediest residents don’t have access to the necessary technology. People still need to meet with people.
Regional offices are important, not just symbolically for those regions that often and legitimately feel neglected by Beacon Hill, but for real people who need government to work for them.
At first glance, I think it sounds like a great policy. I’m all for accessible government.
<
p>
But on the other hand, isn’t that what representatives and senators are for? Does the governor’s office provide a constituent service that the legislators don’t?
<
p>
I can understand the need for this from the AG or the SoC, as they have separate, clearly defined departments. I guess I’m not familiar with what constituent services the governor offers.
<
p>
(For the record, this comment isn’t meant at all to be a dig on Reilly. I’m really open to the idea and I applaud his initiative. I just want to hear some opinions about the policy itself.)
Eury13, a very good question, but there is a very good reason for bringing the Executive Office directly to the people.
<
p>
Legislators do provide constituent services, but very often that involves referring the matter to one of the many important agencies under the Executive Office. That is where the services are provided. In many cases, regional offices would eliminate the need for a legislative middleman or middlewoman to facilitate a result.
<
p>
Additionally, there are 200 state legislators and the quality of their constituent services vary greatly – some are incredibly responsive advocates for their constituents, some are just plain terrible. This would provide a quicker avenue to assistance for many and would represent the only avenue to those who do not already have the quality of representation that they deserve.
<
p>
This proposal doesn’t close any avenues, it just opens up new and improved ones. It’s a win-win for residents beyond Greater Boston.
Gabrieli’s Seven Point Deal with the People of Massachusetts
<
p>
Point #6
<
p>
<
p>
Savings: $1,200,000/new office opened in rent, staff and utilities.
Savings: $4,800,000/ four offices (Eastern, Western, Merrimac Valley, Worcester)
<
p>
Assumptions:
Each office has 1,000 square feet @ $30/sq. ft/yr, $30,000 rent
5 staff, average $40,000/year salary, $200,000 salary.
5 staff, benefits $12,000/year, $60,000 benifits
$500/month utilities, $6,000/yr.
misc. $4,000/ yr
Total per office $300,000/ year
Total per 4 offices $1,200,000/year
Total per 4 offices/4 years $4,800,000
<
p>
Counterpoint: The Executive Branch of Government, the representative of the Governor, has regional offices throughout the state. These offices are tasked with helping citizens in the field across the state. If that structure needs improvement, then that should be tackled instead of layering in additional staff from the Governor’s Office.
<
p>
PS: Obviously, I’m not buying the AG’s claim that his proposal has a minimal cost for the state. Maybe some costs can be reduced, but I’ve carried out what I assume to be staffing Reilly plans to move out of the state house. In order to have a substantial impact, it will take a substantial investment. Gabrieli’s plan brings the Governor right to the people, across the state and leaves the Governor’s staff in place in the state house to work with state senate and state representive’s staff. A small staff travelling with the Governor can take specifics and turn case work over to workers back at the state house.
<
p>
But when people speak of “accessibility” they are just as often speaking of “convenient”. The DOE is “accessible” if you live in Milton and have lots of time on your hands.
<
p>
Down here in SE Mass., we’ve been having problems achieving quorum for town meetings, largely because it can often go late into a weeknight. Families aren’t set up for the extended absence of one or two parents.
<
p>
These are the same people who need accessibility the most, and I guess I don’t see how holding more meetings at inconvenient times provides that.
I have no problem with Gabber’s regional town meetings, but they are hardly better than permanent, fully-staffed regional offices. More often than not, town meetings are the ultimate photo-ops – hence, why town meetings are used during presidential campaigns. In a few hours, Chris Gabrieli can only speak to a limited number of people. At the end of the day, the follow-up work would still be done by staff. By using existing state and municipal office space and allocating existing funds already budgeted for the Executive office in Boston, Reilly would be delivering new services to different parts of the state for the same cost of running the operation exclusively out of Boston.
that the regional offices will be staffed by firing boston people and hiring people out in western MA or whatever.
<
p>
just not the MA way – MA way is to make things bigger.
<
p>
however, i would reverse myself if you pointed to aggressive cost cutting that AG has initiated in his own office.
Didn’t Michael Dukakis have sattelite offices or “move” the State House to Western Mass (it was before my time ;)) for a bit each session? And Deval spoke about this in April when he was at Brandeis. Welcome to the bandwagon, folks.
Which may be where the Financial Control Board for that City is working out of, correct me if I’m wrong.
more government.
<
p>
thumbs down, pal.
I was listening to an elderly friend complain about a false billing she received from a doctor’s office. She had tried to resolve it with the doctor’s office since it was already paid. The answer she got was to pay it again or it would be turned over for collection and she would lose her house. The bill was for about $30.00, with about another $70.00 added on as late fees, although the original billing was less than two weeks old. She tried calling the various consumer help lines. One after another she was told to call other agencies. After being told to call the Division of Banking Regulation, she realized that she was just getting the run-around.
<
p>
With all the agencies, no one has any responsibility except to answer the phone and send the call to another agency. While this creates a lot of jobs, I doubt if it serves the public good. Yes, there a people who have serious problems with government that need help, adding more state employees that play the system is probably not the solution.
<
p>
As for my friend, she filled out a form with the AG’s office, it went to a local DA’s office that contacted the doctor’s office and my friend never heard from the doctor’s office again.
Sorry, but I did this all day every day. Constituent services is what I was PAID FOR.
<
p>
Her Rep’s opponent should use this story as an example of why s/he should not be returned.