I am pretty familiar with his jobs/econ development agenda, most prominently his big life sciences package, and the education Readiness Project (which has yet to be fruit) but beyond the Commonwealth Corps proposal, which created a mini-Americorps service program in the state and recently became law (and maybe his admin's efforts to make the Budget more accessible online), I don't know much about what else he has done in this area. He ran a grass roots campaign but has he governed from the grass roots or done as much as we thought he'd do to spur active citizenship. Maybe he has and I just don't know much about it. I know some folks here took part in his transition group on civic engagement – anymore on what he has done in this area? I would also say the MassInc story was decent, yet I thought too much of the commentary and sources were folks on Beacon Hill (which I guess is sadly necessary), particularly legislators, who always seem to say Governors never work with them well enough. The story also seems to challenge anyone's ability to actually govern from the grass roots -suggesting you can campaign that way but not govern that way. Here from the story:
Later, I spoke with Ehrenhalt about Patrick’s goal of inspiring wider citizen engagement with politics. The practical problem with that for a governor, Ehrenhalt said, is that “the main reason most citizens participate most of the time is to oppose things.” If Patrick were able to forge a strong relationship with the House Speaker and Senate President, cut some deals, and enact good legislation, why not, Ehrenhalt wondered, be happy with that?
I tend to disagree, I think great politicians can not only govern effectively on the inside but also inspire and engage the people to action on the outside, and not just in opposition to something. I still think Patrick could to. In fact, I think he has spent too much time trying to be a conventional governor and not enough speaking to the people about the challenges we face and what we might do about them. Anyhow, hoping if anyone responds to this, we can discuss what Patrick has done to enhance civic engagement, what he could do, and whether we think you can govern effectively from the roots up without sacrificing your inside ballgame – and how the two sides of political leadership can be married better. In thinking about Obama's campaign as well, many of the same issues will be raised for him if he were to be elected president. I'm hoping this post does not generate a lot of swipes at Patrick (or Obama for that matter) one way or the other (of course anyone can post what they want) but that folks consider the issues raised.
is a pretty major achievement. Proposals along those lines had been kicking around in the lege for years. Patrick made it a priority — it was the first bill he filed — and got it done. There’s more to be done, but that was a good start.
Good question. I guess I used the phrase pretty lazily.
<
p>What I think I mean is empowering citizens to more actively participate in their democracy – both electorally, but also through other means of engagement and activism – showing up for town meeting, joining community groups, social enterprises, etc…I mean what does citizenship mean when the Governor uses the term?
<
p>And I also think the Commonwealth Corps is significant.
<
p>I’m just wondering if there is more to his citizenship agenda and asking whether people think that is important.
South of Boston there are several towns where the local pols/board members are in open warfare. Finger pointing, allegations of criminal misconduct and lawsuits.
<
p>A letter to the editor in this weeks Ledger from a randolph resident called for every elected official to resign.
<
p>In my own community we had two town boards counter suing one another which consumed tens of thousands of tax payer dollars.
<
p>The town of Rockland is in a financial quagmire of epic proportion. The Town manager came and went twice, board members are guilty of criminal behavior, and law suits are flying. Same in Scituate and Hull.
<
p>The average Joe reads this in the newspaper. Think this puts a positive spin on civic engagement?
<
p>Because I worked multiple jobs for many years I was essentially unable to participate in my community and local government. After I retired I volunteered for and was appointed to a fairly significant post. It wasn’t six months before I got cut off at the knees. I was giving the town between twenty and thirty hours of my time a week for FREE. The operative word is “was”. Past tense.
<
p>Becoming involved in any public forum now involves a certain degree of peril. Years ago it was simply a philosophical disagreement. Now it is cause for revenge and political and social payback.
<
p>What ever happened to common courtesy, civility, and respect for a difference of opinion?
I posted about this earlier under a different name. I think the Governor has made some large strides in opening the various government agencies to public participation and accountability. I’d go as far as to say that these accomplishments, which could be construed under the idea of ‘citizenship’, are among the largest accomplishments of his first year.
<
p>”The previous Republican administrations (also with help from some Dems like Silber) had turned our regulatory boards into rubber stamps or vehicles for promoting an ideological agenda. Given the limitations on appointments and other red tape, the Patrick administration has actually moved remarkably fast to reform some of these areas.
<
p>Witness the appointments of Paul Reville and Ruth Kaplan to the Board of Education. The Board of Ed now has a diversity of viewpoints not seen in many years. They have enhanced their public comment process and are beginning to become more responsive to the needs of the public they serve. I imagine changes over in Malden will proceed much faster in 2008 with a new Commissioner and the unveiling of Patrick’s education plan.
<
p>The Department of Public Health has seen even more dramatic changes. Patrick made a brilliant appointment in Commissioner of Public Health John Auerbach. John immediately took to a tour of the Commonwealth, holding community meetings in every region of the state to present local public health data and to hear local concerns. I attended several, and it was apparent that John was truly listening. The dialogues are an ongoing tool and are now in their third (I believe) round. All that from an office that had angered many communities outside of Boston by closing regional offices and ignoring the diversity of the state. Patrick’s appointments to the Public Health Council (the Board that oversees DPH) have also brought an unprecedented level of openness and democracy to that Board. The change in this respect over on Washington Street has been so dramatic that people almost don’t know what to do with it.”
<
p>These reforms are quiet and difficult for most of the public to access. However, they are prerequisites to citizen involvement in government and they are the area in which a sitting governor can do the most good for citizen involvement. It is incumbent on those of us in the advocacy community to organize the public to take advantage of these reforms.
I didn’t know any of it. I think the Patrick admin should do more to spread the word about how it is changing the way government engages with the public and think about how that can be deepened across the full range of agencies and interactions.
<
p>Maybe the Gov should publish a “Community Engagement Plan” – setting out how it is already and will continue to give the public more avenues to express their views and engage with the governance of their state. Their is a story here to tell and an important one. Thanks for the post.
I have had an entirely different experience with DPH, particularly when questioning them where 43 million federal dollars went that was earmarked for an infectious disease outbreak.
I found on the Governor’s website a tidbit on the Office of Civic Engagement he started. Anyone know what they have been doing?
But I would LOVE to have advance notice of meetings, announcements and key policy initiatives. We seem to receive email notification of events a day before (and they’re usually during work) which make it hard to plan and attend/participate. Some of that is the Patrick Committee but some of it is the Gov’s office.
<
p>Also, timely responses with an attempt at personalization goes a long way toward keeping people engaged (in other words, the 3 months later – form letters suck).
A problem. You can’t, literally, govern from the grassroots, you govern from the government.
<
p>Not just splitting hairs: what I mean is that government is a specialized instrument for wielding special powers, and it has and should have its own rules for that that ought not to apply to grassroots organizations.
<
p>What you can do is engage, empower, recognize, and nurture grassroots organizations. They can articulate interests to the polity, to government.
<
p>That might give you the political basis to “govern from the grassroots.”
<
p>Organization is key. No organization, no grassroots, just lumpen masses of discontent. Can’t govern from there, (though you can ungovern from there just fine, with tax-repeal referendums ad absurdum).
<
p>I think the relationship between government and grassroots organizations is tricky but worth the candle.