There’s a time and a place in everything, government included, for keeping things quiet; for keeping discussions confidential; for not spilling the beans until they’re all ready to be spilled. Having worked in government myself, I’m sensitive to the need to keep certain matters confidential, at least until the issue in question is resolved, and that’s the purpose behind the “deliberative process exemption” in the public records law. Sometimes it’s hard to make good decisions when the decision-making process is played out in the papers.
However, it seems to me that Governor Patrick is making a mistake by refusing to make public the casino studies, as reported by the Globe and discussed by sabutai yesterday. These studies, presumably, consist mostly of factual information gathered by his Department of Economic Development (or whatever that agency is called these days). There’s no reason to keep those factual details hidden. If the studies also contain recommendations from Secretary O’Connell or other officials, those recommendations could be redacted before making the studies public. Governor Patrick is entitled to receive confidential advice leading up to a decision like this one, but I don’t see any basis for withholding the information underlying that advice.
In the transition process, each of the working groups wrote reports that were full of advice. There was some initial question as to whether those reports would be made public; eventually, they were all posted in full on the transition website — even though the public records law would not have required it (since Patrick wasn’t Governor yet). The Governor should follow the same approach now. Even if the public records law might protect these studies, Patrick should release them. There’s obviously a lot of public interest and controversy surrounding the casino issue. The public — and the Governor — will be well served if everyone can see and discuss the information that goes into Patrick’s ultimate decision. Other things being equal, transparency is preferable — as Patrick well knows.
And also in the “when not to keep your mouth shut” department, we see that Treasurer Tim Cahill is angry that Governor Patrick yesterday made public his disapproval of finding a way to crank up Michael Travaglini’s salary. Travaglini (no relation to the former Senate President oh right, he’s his brother) oversees the state’s pension fund, though he doesn’t actually make investment decisions — he hires managers who do that. Travaglini’s salary is, at present, $322,000, and the proposal to allow him to earn performance-based bonuses could have led to an eye-popping $600,000 a year.
Here’s what Cahill had to say today. After announcing that he wouldn’t pursue the bonus plan,
Cahill then took the extraordinary step of lashing out at Governor Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, accusing him of politicizing the debate over the controversial plan by publicly opposing it…. “The statement released by Governor Patrick was an attempt to politicize the vote and has made it difficult to discuss this issue in a rational and thoughtful manner,” Cahill said in a statement released by his office.
With all due respect to the Treasurer, who is generally a good guy, he’s wrong about this. Having been asked by the media what he thought of the bonus proposal, Patrick was absolutely right to state his view. Cahill, apparently, would prefer that this plan be discussed only inside the building, out of public view, by the usual suspects, in the shadows. You get one guess as to what the result would have been if the issue had been resolved that way. The people’s money is what’s paying this guy, and the people have a right to know what the proposal is, and where their Governor stands on it. Just like the people should know the information going into their Governor’s decision on casinos.
These guys all work for us. Sometimes they seem to have a hard time keeping that in mind.
… it’s politicized votes.
‘Cause most votes by politicians are totally apolitical.
… on the Mike Travaglini thing.
<
p>
How can we expect to attract and retain close relatives of the Senate President if we don’t pay them commensurate to their family connections?
from whoever told him to keep those casino studies secret.
<
p>
Patrick called for civic engagement, and the citizenry deserves a chance to read those studies, so the citizenry can make up their minds about it.
As adamant as I have been on keeping casinos out of Massachusetts, I have been supportive of the Governor’s efforts to keep his own council and figure out his position by taking a long hard look at all sides of this issue. I came into this in 1996 with no preconceived notions and he has to do the same. I think he is keeping this report private for the time being because he needs to digest it before both sides of this issue start weighing in on the various pieces that it contains. He doesn’t need all of us telling him what he has read before he has read it. He needs some time and space.
<
p>
However, after that time, but before he makes a decision, I hope he releases this report so that we can see what it contains in the way of materials. I think at that point he needs to have other people looking at this so that we can either refute or buttress the information contained therein.
<
p> As for now, I am content to let him educate himself based on the briefing materials.
he said he’d release them eventually. Has he said that? It wasn’t in the Globe piece.
<
p>
Why is that exactly? Half the reason I support certain candidates is that I like their “pre-conceived notions”. I don’t want leaders whose minds are closed to change, but I don’t want to elect a bunch of blank slates with good intentions either.
That’s an excellent question. It was because I was appointed to a different position in 1996 when I became Chair of the Government Regulations committee. First, as a chairman, I was no longer representing just my district, but I had to take a statewide perspective. Second, while we all have opinions on almost every subject, if you are in charge or have a position that holds some influence, you have to take a much closer look at that issue and make sure you have all the facts. I believe that the Governor must do the same.
<
p>
For example, I vacationed in Atlantic City as a kid and went back to Atlantic City after the casinos opened in the late 70’s. A superficial look at casinos may lead one to believe that the casinos have lead to a revitalization of Atlantic City because they are glitzy and have created a lot of foot traffic. As a Chairman, I have to look at financials and whether or not those impressions stand up to increased scrutiny. I looked at the city off the boardwalk. I discovered that Atlantic City lost a great deal of their other businesses such as restaurants, taverns and bars as this economy was transferred to the casinos. So the economic impact had a deleterious effect on other businesses and created a transfer of economic activity rather than increased economic activity. This is what I mean by checking notions at the door and taking a new unbiased look based on your position. The Governor may have strong opinions on this, but anyone in a position of influence must realize that they are elected to represent all interests and have to take a fresh look at whatever issues come up. Each year I take another look at this and have new staff run numbers and challenge my notions about this. Even after eleven years, I still look at this issue and talk to all the parties that want to talk to me. I think that is part of the responsibility that we have as elected officials.
Half the reason I support certain candidates is that I like their “pre-conceived notions”.
<
p>
…Reading your post, I was envisioning a candidate campaigning saying “I’m a blank slate…vote for me.” I was ROTFLMAO. It reminded me of Sgt. Shultz on Hogan’s Heros “I know nothing” etc.
<
p>
Re I don’t want leaders whose minds are closed to change, I don’t either, but I would prefer that they explain the reasons for their changes. They are usually reticent to do so. I don’t understand the recticence at all. The ability to rationize a change in belief is a sign of growth, not a sign of weakness.
He can know what he’s read even as we’re “telling him what he has read.” Besides, he’s Gov. Civic Engagement (at least he was Candidate Civic Engagement) which means he can be expected to have a far higher tolerance for leading amid the cacophony of democratic participation than you and other defenders of this secrecy gambit seem to think possible.
<
p>
He needs time and space? Maybe. He also needs to know the thoughts of those citizens who aren’t lucky enough to have the governor’s ear.