Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Ethics reform 101 – all Freedom of Information and Open Meetings laws must apply to the Legislature

By

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

#1 11/28/08 Boston Globe Article on Ethics

http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

#2 URL for Better Government Association

http://www.bettergov.org/Defau…

#3  Better Government Association Report on Integrity in State Government

http://www.bettergov.org/Integ…

#4  Site for the comparative reports and methodology for evaluating openness, level of integrity in government, etc.:

http://www.bettergov.org/Integ…

#5 Study  – people behave differently when they are being watched

http://www.rxpgnews.com/behavi…

#6 Lobbying on a shoe string

http://www.mlri.org/lobbying_o…

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Dan Kennedy did a wonderful blog on the New England First Amendment Center discussing Chuck Turner’s role as champion of open government.

    <

    p>The only difference I had with Dan’s piece was was his characterization of Chuck as an “unlikely” champion of the open meeting law. My direct experience with Chuck is that he is often the first one to speak up loudly and forcefully for protecting the open meeting law and is all too often the only one willing to stay to the end of a hearing to listen respectfully to local residents, whether he agreed with them or not.

    <

    p>And as every civic activist knows, the world is run by those who stay to the end of the meeting.    

    • that cure hunger and it wouldn’t matter.

      <

      p>Fact is, if he’s corrupt and morally depraved and prideful enough to think his corruption shouldn’t matter because he’s black, then it’s time to retire.

  3. For example, for notices of meetings and hearings the law could say that the notice must be posted on the General Court website 48 hours prior to the hearing.  The law should require all actual votes to be taken in public, though I wouldn’t want to eliminate closed sessions entirely for discussion of sensitive matters.  Robert’s Rules requires a two-thirds vote to go into closed session which seems reasonable to me.  It is also possible under Robert’s Rules to later vote to release the minutes of a closed session.

    • Here’s an opportunity for everyone to share their ideas– a promised quick turnaround too! The details below are excerpted from the State House News, but official notices have been widely distributed. Should be fun.

      <

      p>

      PATRICK’S ETHICS TASK FORCE: Headed by the Patrick administration’s chief legal counsel Ben Clements, the governor’s ethics task force holds a public hearing. The task force, pulled together hastily by Patrick as ethics investigations and scandals enveloped Beacon Hill and ensnared members of both branches, is expected to release recommendations at the beginning of January, with legislation for consideration during the 2009-2010 session.

      Patrick has called for the legislation to be passed within 30 days of it being filed, and also proposed giving municipalities more control over home rule petitions. After the task force was announced, Senate President Therese Murray said she was open to any “meaningful changes” to ethics laws, while House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose associates are being investigated over alleged deals over a software contract, has called the state’s ethics laws the “toughest” in the nation, but added that proposals would be “fully considered.”

      Members of the task force include: Sen. Ben Downing (D-Pittsfield); Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield); Rep. James Fagan (D-Taunton); Rep. Mary Rogeness (R-Longmeadow); Harvard Pilgrim Health Care CEO Charlie Baker; Boston College Law School professor George Brown; Kimberly Budd, director of the Community Values Program at Harvard Business School; former state attorney general Scott Harshbarger; Joseph Savage, a partner at Goodwin Proctor; Peter Sturges, legal counsel for Harvest Automation, Inc. and former executive director of the State Ethics Commission; Andrew Tarsy, former New England regional director of the Anti-Defamation League; and Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a government watchdog group. (Wednesday, 3:30 pm, Room A-2)

  4. When there are either NO hearings before, say a liquor license is awarded, or votes no one can see, then IF someone is taking $$$ to influence who gets a liquor license, it is invisible.

    <

    p>Similarly, IF there are no “civilians or constituents” at a hearing on a bill that changes who can bill the Commonwealth, for say, disposing of the bodies of indigents who die in a prison, then IF someone either took $$$ or got their house repaired as “a gift” or their “friend” makes payments on a house in the Cape, or gets “monthly retainers” it is invisible.

    <

    p>If no constituent or citizen activist can tell why, how, or when contracts are awarded or laws are changed, the temptation to operate in the dark gives room for shady characters and opportunists to tempt our administrators, legislators and civil servants, because no one knows “what is on the move” or why or when changes occur.

    <

    p>The best antidotes to temptation and corruption are transparency, openness – and the fact that “people behave differently when someone is watching”.

    <

    p>The Bible even has this principle, albeit in language of another day, stating “Thou shalt not tempt thy brother” – that means locking car doors and legislating in the open.

    • From the Georgetown News, a distributor
      State House News Service.

      <

      p>

      At the same time, the pressure on revenues has become frantic. Gaudy toll increases grimly stamped by the Turnpike Authority prompted House Speaker Salvatore “Spartacus” DiMasi to seize the gas tax mantle and sally forth.

      Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray were a little less enthusiastic, angling for bureaucratic and debt-ownership reforms they say will save money, opening up to privatization, and, in Patrick’s case, holding in abeyance some plans for other new revenues. DiMasi argues that tollpayers alone shouldn’t pick up the tab.

      Elsewhere, plans are afoot to retrain the Massachusetts public’s collective brain so that it is accepting of new demands on its collective wallet. A group of well-connected progressive organizations is meeting to discuss how best to condition taxpayers to accept new demands. Their plan calls for pointing out facilities and programs funded and enjoyed by the public, and making the case that those amenities could decay or disappear without additional revenues.

      With both legislative budget chiefs this week estimating 8 percent cuts next fiscal year, the human services types see a better way. Legendary human services advocate Judy Meredith said some in the group had worked with high-ranking Patrick aides to stave off the unilateral “9C” cuts Patrick prepared earlier this fall. She said, “We accomplished our goal, which was to have some transparency about the 9C process. Well, that was fun. We all got cut.”

  5. The legislature will never make itself subject to the open meeting and public records laws.  Sounds like a ballot question to me.

  6. For the last few months I have been researching the application of the Open Meeting Laws in MA. During my research I learned that there have been several attempts in the last few years to amend the open meeting laws in MA. Specifically, there is a MCLE book titled “Public Records and Open Meeting Laws” that includes the text of a bill sponsored by  Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford). The bill sought to create an Open Meeting Law Board within the Office of the Attorney General. The bill also sought to impose civil fines for individual members of a governing body found to be in violation of the act. Earlier this year, Rep. Cabral submitted a similar bill. Here is also a link to a news article from the New Bedford Standard Times about the bill. There is also this opinion piece from the Boston Globe, Public Records should be public, and the same author had a lengthier piece in Commonwealth Magazine recently titled “Paper Tiger: The state’s public records law is flouted by officials at all levels of government.” Needless to say, the attempts to strengthen the open meeting laws have not been very successful. If the legislature is exempt, and even then won’t agree to a review board and civil penalties, I don’t see the legislature removing themselves from their exempt status. Plus the executive branch is exempted because the Governor and the leaders of executive agencies are not ‘governmental bodies.’ I was just curious, in your post you refer to the legislative and executive branches, but omit the judicial branch. Was this intentional, or do you think FOI and open meeting laws should apply to the judiciary as well?

    <

    p>P.S. I had a few links, but I am new to BMG (as a poster) and don’t know how to create a link in the Post a comment box.

    • …of the judiciary should also be subject to both the open meetings and records laws.  Thanks for the correction.  If you “cut and paste” your link, and do an additional post with your links, that should work.  There is also a very useful “how to” sidebar on this cite which is where I learned to do block quotes.

      <

      p>Your additional information is really helpful and informative!  Thanks.

  7. Our wonderful form of government had its roots in the New England Town Hall meeting, where everyone attended and all business was out in public.

    <

    p>What does government do?   Provide education, safety, streets, regulate commerce, provide water, etc.   What about these issues is so important that it needs to be done behind closed doors where the public can’t see?   I can understand the point that national defense and terror issues need to be done in secret, but how is that deciding who gets a liquor license, or which bidder is best to provide software, or how to raise money for transportation is so top secret that the public (whose money it is) needs to be excluded from the decision making process.   It is preposterous.

    <

    p>I agree that we need to bring this about by a ballot measure, the legislature will not impose this upon themselves.   Don’t forget, the Boston City Council just commissioned a $100,000 report on how to deal with the open meeting law and which concluded they should try and get municipalities to exempt themselves from the Law.

Archives