I’m hearing similar questions from several quarters, some here on BMG and some from friends and fellow activists; all having to do with the makeup of the working groups reflecting business-as-usual rather than true open participation. Some campaign volunteers, who worked their hearts out for hundreds of hours to get this ticket elected, have expressed anguish at how this administration seems to be shaping up. Here are some questions I’m hearing:
– Why is the overall composition of the workgroups about 75% male?
– Why are there no teachers on the K-12 education group, but superintendents and business people are represented?
– Why is the environment and energy group composed of mainly department heads from past administrations, with paltry representation from currently active grassroots groups?
– Why are there so many CEOs in most of the groups?
– Why are there only mayors on the local government group?
– Why is the health care group so dominated by insurance company executives?
– Why is there no work group on public health?
I keep having this sinking feeling, this fear, that all of this community input is just window dressing, and that these guys are really the ones who will make the decisions. I sincerely hope it isn’t so. I think what this not-really-grassroots makeup of the working groups actually reflects is how far we have to go to really have a participatory democracy. It reflects the elephant on the table: how much of our civic life is now dominated by the CEO’s, the business interests, how invisible that usually is, and how much the business interests expect it to be so. So this is where civic engagement comes in. I think it will take ongoing efforts to open up the process; to create avenues whereby all of us workers, parents, teachers, housing activists, environmental activists, health care activists, neighborhood activists, and many more demand our rightful places at the table.
Deval talked about changing politics as usual; he never talked explicitly about changing business as usual. But many of his platform positions require changing business as usual. One of the phrases he used over and over, that was one of the points that first attracted me to his campaign, was his saying that there had to be “more than one bottom line.” To have more than one bottom line, you have to change business as usual. There will be a lot of powerful and moneyed interests pushing in the other direction. It’s commendable that this new administration is opening the door wide enough that we can even see what needs to happen. But it will be up to us to make it happen.
David, you asked us to post suggestions here and to send them to the transition team. But there isn’t any way for me to actually send this to the team or to the workgroup. That little box on the transition web site will only accept 2,000 characters. Lots of people want to send documents. When I mentioned this to a couple of the transition team staffers at the hearing, they said there actually was an email address, and offered to give it to me. I said, “don’t give it to me, put it on the web site so everyone can use it.” So here is my first specific suggestion to open up the process: designate an email address for receiving documents, and a process for senders to indicate which work group should receive it. Please put this up on the site right away. It will make it easier for you in the long run.
<
p>
In one of the original Civic Engagement, I touched upon this. I have since observed further evidence of the false consensus which defined Civic Engagement. So, I ask again, is Civic Engagement a bottom-up or a top-down process? According to Patrick aides cited in this morning’s Globe, it is the latter (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>
Is this government working for the people, or the other way around?
No, this transition doesn’t look at all like an attempt to build a political organization. If you were doing that, would you have Charles Baker on the team?
<
p>
You can’t build a grassroots organization without the towns. Town meetings are a greenhouse for cultivating civic involvement. Most of us who are active on the town level, really don’t like to get involved with the state – except when we are forced to.
<
p>
That large volunteer base, from town meeting to the thousands of volunteer boards and commissions in each town, is the grassroots. Call me when you see the administration reaching out to the towns.
Pablo is right. It is not just about the cities.
For what it’s worth, a member of the transition team contacted me after my posting on BMG about the lack of town representatives appointed to the Municipal Govt. working group. They asked me to suggest Selectmen and Town Administrators who should be part of the policy discussions. I don’t know whether these people will be asked to officially join the transition teams, or asked to bring ideas to the process, or whether my suggestions will get buried in the in-box.
<
p>
It does make me feel that the webroots is somewhat effective, and the Patrick/Murray team is willing to listen (or, in this case, to read) and grow.
<
p>
I made sure to suggest names of women among the individuals I nominated, and I honestly don’t know the political affiliation of most of the people on the list I forwarded to the transition team.
Unless Mumbles has told him these groups don’t exist?
In my e-mail to the transition team, I noted that there are many local elected officials with specific expertise and interests who could be identified and contacted through the Mass. Municipal Association. I expect they already knew about MMA as a source of information.
<
p>
I don’t know why I was contacted to provide some suggestions, other than I had posted an early comment on BMG about the composition of the municipal working group, and I’m a drinking buddy of Michael Forbes Wilcox . . .
When I noted the lack of school committee members, all I got was:
Then, when I wrote back and discussed the history of frustration we have had in communicating with the state in the past 16 years, the response back was:
The K-12 group is far too corporate to really understand the problems we are facing on a day-to-day basis. I’m going to try talking to the mayors – they have been dealing with the same nasty Romney appointees, and because we speak the same language, I can get a few good bullet points on the table in two minutes from the cheap seats.
In the Health Care workgroup you have the CEO of Tufts and Blue Cross and the CFO of Fallon (the guys who brought you Commonwealth Care). The only question is where’s Harvard Pilgram? Charles Baker, oh he’s in the Budget and Finance committee. That’s pretty much all the major players for commercial insurance. While I agree we should include input from all aspects of health care, but maybe just one of these guys whould have been enough representation not the entire community. What other industry has the entire community involved in transitional groups?
Organizations do not magically spring into being, nor can would-be leaders will organizations into existence. For me there are two sides to this civic engagement thing. We want more people to work actively with government so we all think it’s our government not some alien thing to complain about and be cynical about, but something we can make as good, efficient, frugal, and generous as we are.
<
p>
The other side of it though is that I am a progressive and progressives have never had as much influence on government as we progressives would like to have. We want to change things. We want a better world. If John Walsh can help give us progressives a bigger megaphone and more leverage, I will be very happy to support his efforts. I don’t just want to be engaged civicly in order to attend meetings. I want some good to come of it.
for such thoughtful insights…you obviously took a long hard look at what needs to be done to really change how government is run.
<
p>
As those who read regularly know, I have been rather outspoken since I joined BMG on my issues.
<
p>
Margot you have hit on many of the issues that the activists/advocates at the most basic of levels have been voicing for years, not just beginning with this campaign.
<
p>
I also have been concerned how this short process has unfolded itself. And whether Deval had to make concessions of some kind o get the ball rolling. And whether things will continue to get better after he actually takes office. It is a very delicate balancing act. But knowing of Deval’s diverse business/govt./public background, I know he has the tools to make this work, if anyone can.
<
p>
And what an awesome job it will be to really make this work.
And I believe as you do, that it must be from the bottom up, if he is to truly find out where all of the problems are. We at the most basic level or (“on the ground” is how I like to put it) know where, what and how it’s not working in every category. and it is my hope that there be a direct avenue to the Gov.’s office to bring it to his attention.
<
p>
I think all of us from the “daily grassroots” arena, fear that what we have to say won’t go all the way to where it needs to.
<
p>
I live in reality that the Gov. needs to have staffers to handle everything. But I also live in the reality that paid staffers are not encyclopedias and can’t know everything about everything. And how much of what goes to the campaign actually ends up on a desk close enough to Deval to make it to HIS desk. What “expert”, decides if a letter has merit or not? Right now Deval probably has some time to read correspondence, but eventually he will be deluged, and then what?
<
p>
That is why I believe we must keep a forum such as BMG out in the daylight, (truly his transparency) truth, and reality.
<
p>
We need to seek out “daily grassroots leaders” for every aspect of State government. As I have said before, you don’t go to a contractor to get a tooth pulled.
<
p>
Academia and CEO’s definitely must have their place as advisers, but I personally have experienced the lack of knowledge of certain issues from those at the top, yet they are unwilling to “hear” the real story from those of us that live it every day.
<
p>
There must be a venue where we can be heard and we must have assurances that what is said is reaching the man who ultimately may decide if it is viable.
<
p>
***One suggestion to all. If you have posted an idea or a suggestion for Deval and the administration here on BMG or one of the other sites (other than the transition site)(unable to copy from the site) – copy it to WORD or other program and print it out and we must find a way to get a specific address to send them to.
<
p>
All of us must continue to monitor the administration, and hold them accountable, to make good on as many of the civic engagement promises as possible.
So right up front, I am married to Margot and think that she is brilliant and awesome. Of course I think her post is wonderful and very important too. I believe that one of the most important lessons of the success of the grassroots driven Patrick-Murray campaign is that process matters. I would only add that it would be a wonderful model of transparency and healthy future government practice to have the process here serve as a model for open and civic engaging government in the Patrick-Murray administration and elsewhere going forward.
<
p>
In that regard, for example, not unlike BMG, the transition team and all working groups could have all submitted comments posted in full with the name and contact info of the submitting author and with info about the author’s background as they are willing to share that. In this way, folks could comment on ideas that are submitted and could enter into public dialogue with the author and others. Also, ideas could be sharpened and improved in the ensuing back and forth. And initiatives that come out of the process would be attributed.
<
p>
The alternative to this kind of transparency can quickly begin to resemble the infamous Dick Cheney Energy Group that apparently consisted of oil execs. Without transparency we don’t know who is in the room or who has the administration’s ear. We don’t know what influences and connection might be shaping their judgment. We don’t know who takes responsibility for being an advocate on behalf of a policy or initiative.
<
p>
It would also be wonderful (and reassuring if the choices have been good ones) if there was transparency about the membership of the Transition Team and Working Groups. The web page should include a brief bio or resume for each member. It would also be helpful and instructive to have the Transition Team itself collecting and announcing demographic profiles about each group and the team as a whole. For example, how many women are serving? How many people of color? How many people from Western Mass.? From Greater Boston? From Central Mass.? How many people under the age of 35? How many over the age of 65? How many people in the group have an annual income below $40,000? How many have an annual income of more than $100,000? More than $1,000,000? Our confidence that the doors of government are truly being thrown wide open and that talent is being sought out everywhere would be enhanced by some actual evidence.
<
p>
When I have privately raised concerns and criticisms, gently, I think, I have heard repeatedly that organizing a transition is hard to do, etc. I agree. But so is running a winning campaign. You only have one chance to make a first impression and for better or for worse this transition process will be the first impression of how the Patrick-Murray administration will govern. Let’s get it right. This is, after all, the really important part.
<
p>
Deval has asked us to suspend out disbelief and to re-engage or engage for the first time as active citizens. I happen to believe that nothing that he asked of us was more important. That said, I don’t expect a campaign to be a model of democracy or transparency. Decisions have to be made. Authority has to rest somewhere. You don’t want to announce to the media or to your opponents what you are considering and what you are planning. If I don’t like the direction or approach of a campaign I am free to withdraw my support. Government is something else again.
<
p>
I worked very hard for Deval and was proud to be on board very early on. I am so pleased that he was elected. But I always remained at least a little bit skeptical about the comfort with and access given to corporate leadership from a fellow who made his considerable fortune as a player in the halls of Coca Cola and Texaco. Having confidence that the people empowered to represent all of us are not listening exclusively or even primarily to corporate CEOs and other good ol’ boys is an important element of renewing our confidence and trust. The civic engagement working group can help to lead the incoming administration in this regard.
<
p>
Deval always quotes his grandmother’s teaching, to hope for the best and work for it. I have high hopes and I am willing to work hard, as I did during the campaign, to deliver on the promise. Let’s all join in this effort. As Deval and Tim like to say, “Together we can!”
By the way, the reports (unsubstantiated at this point as I haven’t gone through the lists and counted) of a 75% male representation on the working groups is especially disturbing. Pre-election polls and election day exit polling data show that the Patrick-Murray ticket was the beneficiary of a significant gender gap running stronger among women that men even though their principal opponent was a woman, Healy. All the more disturbing than to have women who represent roughly half the voters so grossly underrepresented in the groups that have been put together to shape are start the new administration. If true, this ought to really be setting off alarm bells!
But you left out the group in that list that is heard from the least, disabled….and as far as I know, there is but one member on the working group list out of some 230 citizens….! I rest my case.
<
p>
I am not implying that you forgot, but you make my case for inclusion of everyone and the laws that Deval fought so hard to uphold in Washington. It’s easy to overlook those that are so invisible or absent from most of the processes in government.
<
p>
I want to be one of those that gets the opportunity to change that. That is the promise I made directly to Deval at the convention. I’m tired of being ignored, invisible or worse, not in the thought train at all.
<
p>
So you’re right, we must truly be represented by all who wish to
commit their time and knowledge to the process….no one should be turned down.
I would LIKE to work with the Governor Elect of Civic Engagement. but I did not work or vote for him, and have no interest in being on his fundraising Rolodex.
<
p>
I view the issue of civic engagement as non-partisan, as opposed to the other teams which will create policy for this Democratic Administration.
<
p>
Am I mistaken?
But I don’t think that these work groups and the grassroots are not one in the same. I would agree people active in the grassroots would also be active in the work groups as well.
<
p>
But in my belief the transitional groups are open groups and not exactly what the Globe article today was referring to when discussing building support for his agenda vs. Beacon Hill and future fundraising. Hey, Charles Baker is not going to be making contributions to Deval anytime soon.
Good point, Porcupine.
<
p>
When you really think about it, opposing views are inherent to the concept of “civic engagement.” The trouble arises when the “engagement” part turns into a spitting contest. Thus, the trick is to require everyone to abide by by due process and due respect for dissenting views. All the time. No exceptions. This cannot be a “political” entity if its to have any legitimacy.
<
p>
I’m of the strong opinion that if this coming administration truly opens up its engagement, it will hear some creative and practical ideas that may not fit the traditional liberal / Democratic party mold, but that will be well worth implementing. It may also learn of the huge groundswell of anger and resentment, even among liberal democrats, about the disconnect between the public sector and the rest of us. That groundswell especially includes the “politics as usual” status quo that has made so many people outraged over public sector entitlements. I now see it all the time out there, and its coming on fast. I don’t think public employees really grasp the change that’s headed their way.
<
p>
The question is: will the key movers in this new administration – as public sector people – have the courage and integrity to hear it and take actions that may be contrary to the usual self-interest that has motivated public employees?
<
p>
I see it as a crucial moral test for a sector that has traidtionally been immoral in accruing perks for itself at the expense of everyone else.
<
p>
That’s why this governor-elect’s Civic Engagement goals can count for more than the term might imply. Any meaningful change in government and civic process has to include a change in the public sector mindset. The impetus has to come from outside the public sector, and it cannot be political in character.
<
p>
Geez, this turned into quite the soap-box rant.
if/how well lgbt people are represented in the transition committees?
(and here is the complete list of all the committees).
<
p>
I don’t have any idea of the sexual orientation of any of our members.
<
p>
Civic Engagement
<
p>
Chair, Gail Snowden, Vice President for Finance and Operations, Boston Foundation
Chair, David Kravitz, Moderator and Co-founder, BlueMassGroup.com
Alan Khazei, CEO, City Year
Nancy O’Connor Stolberg, Field Director, Deval Patrick Committee
Ron Bell, Deputy Campaign Manager, Deval Patrick Committee
Mardee Xifaras, Community Activist, Marion
Dick Glovsky, Partner, Prince, Lobel, and Glovsky
Tripp Jones, Senior Vice President, The Mentor Network
Bishop Walter Weekes, Suffragan Apostolic Church
David Roach, Superintendent, Millbury Schools
Maureen Curley, CEO, Civic/Brown
Eric Schwartz, CEO, Citizen Schools
Harris Gruman, Director, Neighbor 2 Neighbor
Cam Kerry, Attorney, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
Carlos Ferre, Principal, Melton Ferre Associates LLC
in some regards to reflecting the population of the state than others. That is inevitable.
<
p>
For example, in this group, the Civic Engagement Workign Group, I don’t know where everyone lives or works and so far as I know that information has not been posted anywhere (leaving me to be suspicious). But from what I do know and from the people or employers who I know or recognize I would say that venture to suggest that perhaps only David Roach is from outside of Route 495 and he is in Millbury, not western Mass. Perhaps I am mistaken and there are one or two others.
<
p>
Still, since, by my very rough calculations, about 40 – 50 % of the state’s population lives out here beyond 495, I would think that that number (be it one or two or even three or four) would be a cause for discussion.
<
p>
This is like affirmative action and job discrimination. I for one, wouldn’t require that every group look exactly like the population of the commonwealth in every regard. That would be pretty nearly impossible without having huge groups. But where there is a dramatic variation from what a random cross section would produce, that ought to at least be cause to stop and examine what has happened and to ask why and to ask whether a remedy by addition might be necessary or at least helpful.
<
p>
In Worcester local government for example, our city charter requires that most Boards of Commissions must have a representative from each of the five city council districts. Is this because it is impossible for someone who lives in another part of town to be looking out for my interests or to be reflecting my concerns? Of course not. Neither is it inevitable or even extremely likely that someone who lives in my part of town would share my concerns, etc. But with fifteen people on this working group, wouldn’t it be reasonable to set as a goal that each of the ten Congressional Districts would have at least one person. I am being cynical but I am willing to give odds that of the fifteen members there are three or four greater Boston area CDs with at least three or four residents each.
<
p>
And geography is obviously just one of at least a dozen important elements in thinking about and trying to reflect the diversity of the commonwealth.
Did you hear about the guy from Southie who moved to Western Massachusetts?
<
p>
He moved to Arlington.
How can a person get involved with the Civic Engagement group — the planning, the listening to people, the actual work?
<
p>
To me, this is the heart and soul of the “Movement for Change” and “Politics of Hope.” And I kindda hoped I could be involved in making things move and change.
<
p>
Is there anything we can do?
<
p>
(I suppose I envision the public meetings as either a town hall where people just throw out an idea here and another one there… or a lecture — but not a real working group, because it’s just too large.)
<
p>
I was told that it was my campaign. Is it also my civic engagement working group? Or is this fundamentally different?
<
p>
– sheila (goin’ nuts on the sidelines)
Rather than be the most skilled backseat drivers out there, perhaps there’s some merit in waiting to see what these working groups actually produce before we decide the effort is doomed? I candidly don’t care as much about the gender composition as I care about the experience and vision of the people on the committees. For example, what matters to me on the K-12 Education committee is the absence of classroom teachers, not whether the people sitting around the table have testicles or ovaries. Will these people realize there’e an omission of experience in the committee’s composition? I’d like to think so. And if they do, I’m hopeful they will do what they need to do, as professionals, to compensate by getting the information, input, and feedback from teachers they need. This isn’t rocket science. If they don’t? Then we can slice and dice their myopic results six ways to Sunday.
<
p>
Would it be nice if both genders were represented equally. Sure would. A committee comprised of 50% women and 50% men, however, can come up with just as much idiocy as any committee comprised primarily of one gender. To my thinking, it’s what these people actually do with the information they glean that’s important. I think the daggers are out a bit prematurely.
I think it’s legit to be the ones who take a step back and ask, what’s going on really? (Since I know transition is hectic for the team – they need us to get a reality check from time to time I think.) And I also think that these groups had to formed so quick there wasn’t really time to make them what they will eventually become (I hope).
<
p>
I also think this isn’t doomsaying…I think it’s a healthy thing to let people know we’re watching and are going to scrutinize the results, to make sure they are palletable for the average joe. It might make them a little more aware of the importance of their jobs to make this work well.
<
p>
I also agree with you, however, that it’s just too early to tell the outcome. I do trust Patrick to make good decisions, even if I disagree with some (and as he has repeatedly said, he will make mistakes). But a thoughtful look at the pitfalls before they might happen will only help him avoid them, so I think an honest assessment now is better than a look backwards at what we could have done better after the fact.
I guess I detect a real negative sense emerging before the thing ever gets off the ground. Noting these things is fine, but I don’t think there’s much more to be gained until the work’s complete. Maybe I’ve misread the tone & tenor of these discussions, but many of them seem unjustifiably critical at this juncture since there’s really nothing meaningful yet to criticize.
If indeed some teams are skewed a little too much towards business, or something, Patrick can take that into consideration when weighing their recommendations…there’s no way he could have looked into every background of every team member with a fine tooth comb. If some of them have connections that can be ferreted out that would compromise some of their recommendations, then that helps Patrick see through any agendas the individuals or groups have when presenting their various conclusions.
he will spot agendas, if we constantly seek and reveal the transparency….
… you get an unhappy result. “How did that happen?”
<
p>
The only way to deal with large, state-sized bureaucracies, is to make lots of noise, make your presence felt, make the need for dialogue with (school committee members, teachers, towns, women) one of the top three big picture lessons they take away from the experience.
<
p>
After years of the Pioneer Institute, Manhattan Institute, and now the Thomas B. Fordham Institute providing the back-office for the state Department of Education, it provides nothing but anxiety to see the lack of practitioners and the influx of outsiders in the K-12 working group. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Let’s try to refrain from elevating the mission of the working groups. These groups have been assembled to spend 2-3 weeks talking among themselves and with the people of the state about their niche issues and then present some recommendations to the new administration.
<
p>
Of the few people I know on some of these groups, not even they know what the final result will be of their efforts. They’re putting in the time and effort to get a decent view of where we as a commonwealth stand and they’re going to make their proposals in another 10 days.
<
p>
But in the end, it’s the Governor-elect, our own St. Patrick, who will be making any and all decisions about which recommendations he wants to keep and which ones he wants to disregard. Which ones he’ll take as-is and which ones he’ll adjust as he sees fit.
<
p>
I for one am impressed that these groups have been assembled and that we the people are being given these opportunities for input. But in the end these are very brief studies that will likely be little more than starting points for the next four years.
<
p>
When DP appoints his cabinet and the rest of his staff, then we can look at who’s going to be doing the policy shaping for the forseeable future. But until then, I’m willing to give the administration-elect the benefit of the doubt.
You make a good point.
to my post. But if you think I was doomsaying, you didn’t read it carefully. From what I was seeing and hearing, some people were looking at the lists of team members and checking back out. My point is that seeing who is on the teams shows us who the players are. If we want to change the players, we need to check in more than ever, perhaps more than Deval has bargained for. It’s to his credit that he has opened these doors. I will continue to “hope for the best and work for it.” But all of us clearly don’t agree on what “the best” is. I’m certainly not convinced that what is best for Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts, and Fallon is what’s best for health care, for example. It matters who is around the table. We need to keep showing up. So, see you tonight in Millbury!