You heard it here first, folks. Contrary to David Bernstein’s prediction, http://www.thephoeni… the new Gov will not expend precious political capital in Year 1 by tying state control strings to local aid (Year 2 maybe, when muni finances settle down a bit and after a year-long sales job by Murray). Instead, DP will propose that he, as the “supreme executive magistrate” of the commonwealth (at least according to the constitution) gain control over all the quasi and independent authorities in the state.
Think about it: just like the Genie in Aladdin, the Gov has almighty power but itty bitty living space when it comes to actual executive control over important aspects of people’s lives, like the international and municipal airports, drinking water, trains, the major east-west highway link, job training and placement, international trade, and a myriad other important executive functions. For the past 16 years, the Legislature (often with the complicit assistance of outgoing Govs who needed a place to salt their peeps) has slowly eroded executive power in Massachusetts when the seat was held by Republicans. The most extreme recent example, the Public Health Council, is pending in the SJC (which Patrick should let ride, since it seeks to ratify executive power, if the case is strong) but lots of other examples abound. We taxpayers even fund private 501(c)(3) corporations with tax dollars over which NO ONE who is accountable to the Governor or voters is responsible. Yikes!
So if you’re DP and looking for a bold stroke (and the control to exert real reform initiatives), the call is easy: inflame a municipal constituency out of the gate, or file legislation to expand the boards of all authorities and 501(c)(3) corporations with gubernatorial appointments to seize control of about 25% of executive functions that are not under the control of the supreme executive magistrate. Who knows, maybe even the ABCC and other agencies ultimately will return to executive control under the Gov.
Anyone want to bet against me?
The surest way to inflame local officials will be to do nothing.
<
p>
What Patrick will try to do–I’m not saying he will succeed–is to cobble some package of new aid and local powers, conditioned on the adoption of some new programs and procedures (like interlocal cooperation).
<
p>
There are many examples of such local-option programs, so called because communities have the option of leaving the money on the table and not opting in. They are popular and generally successful because they work for everybody.
Still want to take me up on that bet? http://www.boston.co…
thanks, amicus, for the brief 101 on the extremely potent issue (Executive power) to governing and public policy making in MA. i didn’t really have any grasp many on the particulars you touch on. i understand much of what you say but not all. the 501(c)3 concern is one area in particular that intrigues me, so specific examples as well as pointers on how to research this would be most appreciated.
<
p>
the public health council status is another that i’ll be trying to learn more about. being a state resident, a community health nurse, and a taxpayer i feel strongly that we as a commonwealth need to be bold and creative and seek to explicitly join public health with the traditional “health care system”, since the latter is unhealhty in its emphasis on treating disease (very expensive) rather than on promoting health (huge cost savings and certainly much improved quality of life).
<
p>
thanks.
First, I’m not exactly sure what this means:
<
p>
<
p>
Unless, he’s referring to contracts awarded by the State to these 501(c)(3) organizations. In that case, often the Governor, through the agencies has some oversight.
<
p>
But for direct oversight of 501(a) entities, its the Attorney General’s Division of Charities.
<
p>
The easiest research for the 501(c)(3)s is Guidestar.org which has much of the same info that’s on file with the AG.
Who?
Gary, sorry to take so long to answer your question, it’s just that the day job rears its ugly head from time to time. I started to compile a list of examples, and in five minutes had over 10 examples with several million dollars of appropriation. This is not to say that the mission of these corporations is bad, it’s just a matter of executive control and accountability. Perhaps agencies can handle these tasks directly or, God forbid, the private sector by tax credits or COMPETITIVE (not special interest) grants with objective performance measures. While not comprehensive, simply search the budget for the word “corporation” at http://www.mass.gov/… to get a quick sense of what I’m talking about. I’m just one of a dying breed who strongly believes that government should be closer to and more accountable to the people. Cheers.
Sure AnnEM, here’s a quick and dirty way to take a look at the issue: go to the General Laws website http://www.mass.gov/… and enter “corporation” as a search term. Ignore all the laws that simply regulate business corporations and you’ll see a bunch of laws (10 pages worth) that reference corporations that essentially function as executive agencies but without the same level of public oversight and accountability as agencies. Keep in mind this is only a partial list; the bulk of such corporations are created by special acts rather than general laws or as line items/earmarks in the annual budget. Hope this helps.