January 18, 2007
BOSTON –Gov. Deval Patrick and his top budget chief, Administration and Finance Secretary Leslie Kirwan, on Thursday ordered department heads to find ways to cut 5 to 10 percent as the new administration prepares to give the Legislature its first annual state budget.
Remember that? I thought it was a good idea.
Now here’s my question: Do you think it’s a good idea for those “raw” recommendations to be made public?
The Governor has often commented “As governor, I will push for transparency in state finance.”
But maybe this would be TOO much transparency.
Cost: I assume no manager wants to put up a “cut list” if they won’t be implemented. All those people then stick around and say “So, um, you don’t think my job is important?”
Benefit: It would citizens understand the tradeoffs that Gov (and State House, Senate) must make.
For example, now we might say, “Geez, I’d really love to see more DSS caseworkers.”
With a menu of plausible budget cuts (plausibility inherent in that the agency director proposed them), we could be more specific — “I’d love to see caseworkers increase, even if it means cutting safety inspectors from the transit budget, and cutting the solar power incentive fund.”
In addition to showing tough tradeoffs, making the “proposed cut lists” transparent would also spotlight pork — pet projects of Reps and Senators that Agency heads don’t want.
Otherwise, pork gets approved, and — almost inherently — services for the needy (with less political juice) tend to be cut instead.
hlpeary says
I do not think that degree of transparency is needed…that’s what we are paying them to do, consider all of the recommendations for cuts given to the Gov. by Secretariats and come up with an equitable and workable budget that will certainly reflect the kind of Administration he intends to create. Releasing the worksheets before the budget is completed would only ignite a whine festival.
<
p>
One thing I think would be helpful is for the Gov. not only to ask for 5-10% from each Secretariat but also to ask for 5-10% across the spectrum of Commissions…individually it might not seem like big savings, but collectively it would add up. It would also show that the need to cut was shared across the board. Many of the state Commissions get automatic budget increases from year to year with no scrutiny as to whether or not they really need extra funding. (Hence, the flurry of office supply/postage/misc. spending at the end of the fiscal year to use up all of the year’s appropriation.
<
p>
How many Commissions are now operating? What would a 10% cut across the board for all Commissions save the Commonwealth?
I am not sure of those figures, but would be interested to know.
goldsteingonewild says
is there some webpage that shows all the MA commissions?
<
p>
i didn’t realize there were very many.
rhondabourne says
As I begin my 22nd year of service in the Department of Mental Health, which falls within the rubric of EOHHS,I have learned a good deal about communications within a huge top down beauracracy. The people at the top are not interested in the ideas or recommendations of those that actually provide the service. Any peon with an idea is suspect,and told they are operating “out of the chain of command.” Our Commisssioner at DMH requested cost saving ideas from all employees. Many people told me that they were afraid to submit an idea or suggestion. I submitted six suggestions and received a canned reply to each one. My ideas may not be great, but they do deserve some consideration. The Department of Mental health has a $646 million dollar budget and the services we provide are not what they can or should be.
<
p>
I worked hard to get Deval elected in the hopes that he would diminish this kind of deaf administration within the state. Without full transparency, DMH can continue to dismis the ideas of many of its employees, just as DSS, DMR, DPH, etc can. Public employees need a venue to express their concerns and ideas past those that run their Departments like some self proclaimed fiefdom.