Franklin Park Zoo hires a PR firm to issue a press release claiming (falsely, it turns out) that state budget cuts will force the zoo to euthanize some animals, and the immediate reaction is a clamor for an override of the veto cutting the zoo budget from $6.5 m to $2.5 m. Makes sense, right?
Maybe not. The national economic crisis has hit all states hard – Massachusetts is not immune. State revenue is down considerably, and many worthwhile programs are being cut or asked to provide the same services with fewer resources. Governor Patrick has worked hard to manage throught this crisis with a focus on shared responsibility, reforms, and a request for agencies and programs to figure out ways to persevere with less. Like families all across Massachusetts, the Governor has been forced to make tough choices in order to live within our means. Just read through some of the posts on BMG – very important issues like those championed by Amber Paw and others are either being level funded, cut, or eliminated all together in order to close an over $5 billion budget gap.
Why should the zoo be treated any differently? Yes, it is an important resource for our state, a wonderful attraction for families, and has an educational and economic value that should not be overlooked. But the fact that it can attract media attention to its cause through the animals in its care does not make it any more important than the incredbilby worthy programs Amber Paw has writtein about, or the human service programs being forced to serve growing populations with less money, or preservation of health care benefits for Massachusetts residents.
My point is not to criticize the zoo. It is to show that we are in the middle to challenging economic times, and hard choices have to be made based upon competing priorities, shared values, and a long-term outlook that positions us to grow jobs and provide opportunities for the future. This will not be accomplished by blindly responding to each day’s headlines – rather, it takes a calm, sustained vision and a commitment to a long-term plan.
Governor Patrick has provided this kind of leadership. Whether through his sustained effort to pass his reform agenda, or his
commitment to growing the jobs of the future, or his ability to work with the Legislature to deliver a budget that is on-time and balanced, the Governor has focused on a long-term vision for our future. You may disagree with the direction, but it is a vision that is consistent and in-line with his values and priorties.
Over the next few days, there will no doubt be a movement in the legislature to override the zoo veto. There is nothing wrong with this – it deserves a full hearing and an honest debate on the facts. However, let’s make sure that the debate is driven by an honest assessment of our current situation and a long-term vision of where we want to go, and not just today’s headlines. Just because the zoo can generate front-page headlines doesn’t mean it should jump in front of many other worthy programs.
a part of this coming conversation, about the zoo in particular, should be about the fact that the State Legislature rejected numerous, fair proposals by the Governor that would have generated a modest sum of additional revenue for this state. Perhaps if we were applying the sales tax to liquor and candy, we’d have some more money for the zoo?
Ryan, we now do have sales tax on liquor.
Sales tax on top of existing excise tax.
What’s this word “euthanize”, they aren’t youth. They’re animals, like cows and pigs. Instead of killing cows and chickens and all the other animals people eat thousands of per day, why don’t you eat elephant and giraffe? I bet some local chefs could do wonders with them, and raise some money at a high class $1000 a head fundraiser.
<
p>
56 delicious Kangaroo recipes!
<
p>Marinated Zebra, Antelope or Giraffe Steak Recipe
<
p>However, this story is alarming: Man Suffers from 1,415 Diseases; Blames His Gorilla Meat Diet
<
p>2. The FPZoo, like all zoos, gets kids interested in the environment. Dorchester and Roxbury both have plenty of pavement, not nearly enough trees. Far too much parking, not nearly enough parks. The FPZoo helps to counter this, if only a little bit.
<
p>Since last October’s 9C cuts there have been a lot of stories about threatened cuts in the state and local press, some promoted by professional press consultants, others by outraged supporters and clients, and most often, by experienced administrators of state supported programs including local officials who consider it their business to educate their public about the effect of proposed cuts to their programs forced by a lack of revenue.
<
p>Sometimes we’re lucky and have a sympathetic story to tell that captures the general public’s imagination, and if we’re smart we can use it as a teaching opportunity to explain, as the Governor has done so well in the past, that we need to support a range of public infrastructures that support a healthy community, and public spaces like Zoos and parks and recreational facilities are key.
<
p>Why doesn’t your campaign use this as an opportunity to support a balanced and adquate tax package this fall that can repair and restore all the public infrastrtuctures that educate our children, keep our air and water clean,our homes and streets safe and our enviornment sound?
The sheer size of this veto for the zoos – and its apparent disproportionality compared to other facilities and programs is key to the outrage.
<
p>Also, lets not distort what the zoofolk said. They did not say animals would be euthanized [killed in plain english ’cause they could not be taken care of due to $$$] they said these animals might be euthanized.
<
p>The reason Little Joe the Gorilla was high lighted is that his difficult behavior makes him the hardest to place – kind of like the child welfare kids with reactive attachment disorder I work for as a court appointed attorney.
<
p>And I stand by what I have said before; these vetos target those without voices who don’t make donations in what looks to be to be a disproportionate [ah that word again!] manner.
So just as the State, to quote Doug Rubin, makes tough choices so do I have to make decisions about where my hard-earned money goes.
<
p>My limited resources, to the extent I can make donations, are better placed in the hands of the One Can Help Foundation where 100% of my money goes to kids in foster care so they can go to summer camp or have beds their size…or buying a family membership to the Zoo Foundation then to a political campaign war chest.
<
p>I thank Doug for noticing that I champion “worthy causes” but will let him know, once again, I wonder if anyone is listening in the Executive…especially now that Doug has left the hill.
<
p>The meaning of a communication is the reaction you get. While they didn’t exactly say “override the veto or the animals get it,” that was the idea they wanted to plant in order to get a rise out of people. That’s just as dishonest in my book as if they had said it outright. And now ZNE even says that euthanasia isn’t on the table and a WBZ radio report I heard this morning says that ZNE doesn’t even have the authority to carry that out.
<
p>I have no problems with ZNE or anyone else advocating for their causes, but let’s keep it honest. Now excuse me as I have to tell my daughter that if she doesn’t clean her room, it just might burn down.
I don’t think so. I am sure you will say, “that’s not what I meant” just like the rest of us do. Nope. Doesn’t fly at least with me.
It’s time to get back to government’s core mission on behalf of the citizenry. Funds are precious and need to be allocated wisely. I say sell off or close down government subsidized golf courses and zoos. The Governor was right! Shame on the pandering Legislature.
and see a special need for the one at Franklin Park – I agree with your sentiment that zoos and golf courses are not part of the core job of our government.
<
p>I would rather see the zoos be subsidized by a charitable foundation and get the costs off the government entirely.
This core job of our government line is nonsense. The government should do more than just subsidize infrastructure for business, it should develop and implement programs that enrich the lives of its citizenry.
<
p>All of this could have been avoided if we had kept taxes high during good times and put the money aside for the recession that everyone knows is a natural part of an economic cycle.
<
p>The Bush tax cut put something like $6 billion dollars a year back into Massachusetts taxpayers pockets – we should have gotten some of that back and saved it for the inevitable recession. So while I agree with your shame on the legislature sentiment, it’s for very different reasons.
This core job of our government line is nonsense. The government should do more than just subsidize infrastructure for business, it should develop and implement programs that enrich the lives of its citizenry.
<
p>All of this could have been avoided if we had kept taxes high during good times and put the money aside for the recession that everyone knows is a natural part of an economic cycle.
<
p>The Bush tax cut put something like $6 billion dollars a year back into Massachusetts taxpayers pockets – we should have gotten some of that back and saved it for the inevitable recession. So while I agree with your shame on the legislature sentiment, it’s for very different reasons.
“Sustained” is a key word here. My main issue with the governor is that his hand has seemed unsteady. He periodically rolls out big proposals, most notably the casino proposal, and doesn’t see them through. When they meet resistance in the Legislature, which is inevitable, the governor’s tone shifts to defeatism or whining, and the Legislature takes the signal and defeats them in favor of its own priorities.
<
p>Take the recent Ethics Bill fight, arguably a victory for the governor. He gave the Legislature only 10 days to get it done. Now that may have worked, but I can pretty much guarantee that the short-timing will come back to haunt him later.
<
p>The governor had enormous “political capital” coming in, but something went awry pretty early. It’s understandable that the Legislature would be used to ignoring the governor after 16 years of Republicans, so a little help — that is, fundraising for them — might have made some sense in the first two years. The Legislature should have been thrilled to have a popular governor who was willing to make tough budget calls — but they aren’t. It can’t just be the leadership, leadership has changed hands.
<
p>Why is the relationship dysfunctional? Here’s my take: because the members who would be the governor’s natural allies know that he won’t back them up in a fight. And they know just as well that their fellow members will punish them. So, when it comes to a choice between their leaders and the governor, it’s a pretty easy call.
<
p>If I were you, I would have the governor go on a redemption tour, acknowledging some mistakes. If he poses as the knight who was held back by the dragon Legislature, that might get him past Charlie Baker, but it’s going to make a really ugly second term.
<
p>I want to believe the governor is better than he has been. I want to believe in change. Can I?
<
p>
Jim, thanks for your comments. First, a small correction on the ethics bill. The Governor put together his ethics task force in October of last year, and filed his ethics bill in January. He also called on the Legislature to work with him on the ethics bill in his State of the Commonwealth address in January. So, the Legislature had the bill for over six months, not 10 days.
<
p>I understand that we have made some mistakes – I will be the first one to admit that there are instances where we could have reacted quicker or made better decisions. However, the Governor has shown a willingness to see his initiatives through even when they meet some initial resistance in the Legislature – witness the year-long effort to work with legislators on the life science proposal, and the ultimately successful effort to push through major ethics, pension and transportaion reform this year.
<
p>Change does not come easy, and it is not always pretty. But it is happening here in MA, and it is the people of MA who will ultimately benefit from that change.
And visiting BMG.
He’s part of BMG. He belongs here.
<
p>He’s not ‘visiting’.
The big issues here are that:
<
p>1) Zoo New England is able to hire a private PR firm to advocate for their money, unlike many others who are seeing their budgets and/or aid cut;
<
p>2) They lied. They dropped the zoo closure and euthanasia bomb and then, according to the Globe, stayed mum yesterday after they started the firestorm.
<
p>
<
p>Don’t miss the last two paragraphs of the Globe story:
<
p>
<
p>Also see Adrian Walker’s column today.
They said if the 50%+ budget cut stayed, they’d probably have to close, and that, in that event, the state would then have to a.) euthanize the animals that can’t be transferred, or b.) care for those animals “in perpetuity”. Either or.
Deval is saying that the state will do b.), perhaps anticipating that himself, Bob DeLeo, and Terry Murray will take turns feeding the lions, bathing the gorillas, cleaning out the snake cages, etc should the zoo close.
Which part was a lie?
They’ve been through this before and leveled the same threats. In the 90s, they had to close the Stone Zoo for a few years but the animals were transferred and none were killed. The Globe article talks about other zoos facing severe cuts across the nation and the actions they are taking. None are closing.
there are too many really important areas where the government could better serve the people.
<
p>One area of frustration is the use of ARRA funds for transportation. The Obama administration realizes that the potential of job creation by the Recovery program is not being achieved, yet we continue to channel those critical resources into re-paving roads, rather than targeting them to infrastructure that would enable private investment in worthwhile projects, particularly the smart growth transportation related projects that have difficulty maturing due to the lagging economy. If the “system” forces us to underperform, change the system.
I’m a big supporter of Gov. Patrick, but this whole episode raises some troubling questions:
<
p>1) Why are you “doubling down” on this issue? Do you not see that this is bad politically or are you just too stubborn to recognize you got played by ZNC and legislators eager to bring you down a peg?
<
p>2) Do you think your efforts, here and elsewhere, make it more likely or less likely that the legislature will override this particular veto?
<
p>3) Do you think that by associating the governor’s vetoes, collectively, with the zoo issue that the legislature will be more likely or less likely to override other line-items veto of more dubious merit and political support?
<
p>4) House 1 Revised “zeroed-out” several programs, including the zoos. The legislature put the money back into several of these programs, but you did not veto those appropriations. The most notable instance I can think of is the $10m for the Quinn Bill, but there are numerous ones throughout the budget. Why did you not reduce or zero-out these programs as well?
<
p>5) Given this new austerity mentality and desire to make “hard choices”, I am wondering how you reconcile the decision to give the public employees 3% annual raises, on top of whatever seniority/step increases they receive. What other business or organization is giving out pay increases in this economic climate? Given that the dollars at issue are much greater in terms of budget impact, why not adopt the only currently defensible posture in your negotiations with the public employee unions: “no raises; feel lucky you still have a job.”
There is a pattern as to where the money is and where it is cut. And I don’t find that pattern pretty at all.
<
p>Cut Fernald and the Zoos – but leave the unions alone.
<
p>Don’t make the hard choices about revenue – but whack the courts and access to justice and the cognitively liimited…
<
p>Who votes?
<
p>Who donates to campaigns?
<
p>What/who does not vote or donate [now evaluate the cuts THAT way].
The path to better government in Mass requires taking on the public employee unions. Although they are certainly not the only problem, I think it is fair to say they are the primary impediment to progress on many issues — budget imbalance, pensions, healthcare costs, ridiculous work rules. All of these means less money for the things people here care about: social welfare programs, infrastructure investments, education, recreation, etc. Deval seems somewhat willing to take on the most egrigious abuses — flagmen, 23-and-out, king-for-a-day, toll collectors — but the major, structural, large-dollar problems remain unaddressed.
<
p>If classical collective bargaining were what was actually happening in state government, there’s no way anyone could get a 7% raise (plus step increases!) with 10% unemployment and the biggest economic downturn since the 30s. Remember, if this were private enterprise, Deval and others would be “management”… they’d be expected to seek out efficiencies, pay no less than necessary, etc. Nope, this is all about buying labor peace and door-knockers for the re-election campaign.
<
p>
<
p>Guess what, zoo employees don’t have bigtime lobbyists like Trav, but guess who does. Neither do the people who visit them. Leadership on behalf of these people means taking on some powerful interests.
Workers shouldn’t have to pay for the recession. Not public sector workers and not private sector workers.
<
p>The fact that we do end up paying for it is the result of our lack of organization and lack of political control over the economy.
<
p>Calling on public sector workers to take cuts during a recession is not part of the solution, it’s part of the problem. I’m not defending benefits that no one should have (king for a day, etc.) but we should not attack affordable health insurance, decent retirement and wages that keep up (or in many cases catch up).
<
p>The fact that many private sector workers are losing this battle is a reason for them to organize and for the Democratic Party to support organizing. Not a reason to grease the skids on the race to the bottom by calling for all workers to accept cuts.
<
p>The wealthy and high income earners in the private sector cause workers to take cuts when they withold their spending and investment. They do so in the public sector when they refuse to pay higher (or more progressive) taxes. That’s where the fairness problem is.
<
p>
Ed, thanks for the questions. Before I answer, I just wanted to push back at Amber Paw for the connection she is making between these decisions and fundraising. That is way out of line, in my opinion. As someone who has been in the room with the Governor as he makes these decisions, I can tell you that those considerations never enter the decision-making process. It may make for a nice sound bite, but it is not reality in the Patrick administration, and I think the use of that kind of stuff cheapens an otherwise strong argument Amber Paw is making in support of her cause.
<
p>Anyway, on to the answers:
<
p>1. We are not “doubling down”, just standing by our position. The Gov has been intimately involved in these budget decisions because he understands they have an impact on people. He feels strongly the zoo, like all other state agencies and like families all across this state, must figure out a way to make do with less during these challenging times. This is not about politics, but about making the right choices and standing up for our decisions.
<
p>2. That is really up to the Legislature. Our job is to lay out the Governor’s decisions, justify our actions, and work with the Legislature to jointly arrive at a decision that is in the best interests of the Commonwealth as a whole.
<
p>3. Our intent was not to associate the Gov’s vetoes with the zoo issue, but to make tough decisions in the context of a very difficult budget. As the Legislature considers all of the Governor’s vetoes, they have to weigh restoring the funds for the zoo against all the other worthy programs that have been cut, and in the context of a continual decline in state revenue.
<
p>4. On the Quinn bill in particular, many communities are required in their bargaining agreements to fully fund these benefits, regardless of the state support. For these communities, the reduction in Quinn funding was similar to a reduction in local aid, and the Governor felt that keeping the $10 million in for this year while eliminating the program going forward was a way to help minimize the impact on local budgets as we transition from this program.
<
p>5. Let’s get the facts straight on this – we put a four year offer on the table a while ago that included a 0% increase in year one, 1% in year two, and 3% in year three and four. At the same time, we included in the budget an increase for most employees in the percentage they pay for their health care, which for some would wipe out any increase in salary. Given the declining economy and revenue picture, the Governor has asked A+F Secretary Leslie Kirwan and her team to go back to the table and ask for further concessions. The Governor has already instituted a furlough program this year for managers in the executive branch.
<
p>Thanks again for your questions.
Unlike yourself, I was not “in the room” when the decisions were made. I just take two colors of blocks, as it were, and push them into two directions and get an impression looking at those piles. It may be that line items with lobbyists to bring in statistics, shore up arguments, etc. fare better – rather than due to the “voting and fundraising” concern I raised. After all, this is why organizations hire lobbyists and why so many former legislators [like, say, Traviglini] are sought after as lobbyists, strategists, etc.
<
p>What I do not understand, is why the veto of the zoo’s line item funding could not have been about $1,000,000 [still a chunk of change] with photo ops of the Governor at the zoo and using his considerable warmth and charisma to assist the zoos in fund raising to help ensure not just continuing these collectively-owned jewels, but helping them thrive. The Zoos ARE resorts that ARE destinations and keep spending here in Massachusetts.
<
p>There was no desire for a “cheap shot” on my part, nor did I go on the air waves, issue press releases, accuse anyone of lying [etc] – I merely stated how it looks to me.
<
p>I freely admit I am not part of any decision making process by the executive branch – or any branch – of government.
<
p>I don’t see, either, how stating a fear that if $4.5 of $6.5 in funding is eliminated, zoos will have to close and the harder to place animals [like the strong willed and active Little Joe] could possibly face euthanasia….is or was a lie. Nope.
<
p>Maybe an unpleasant set of worries to have made public, but it annoyed me no end that the public airing of these concerns by the Zoo leadership was subjected to attack-style allegations of lying and other “change the subject” tactics. To me, that undermined any strength the response from the Executive might otherwise have had.
<
p>Anyway, so thanks for the kind words [that is how I choose to take your words] and that the arguments I am advancing do have some strength.
<
p>For line items and programs without lobbyists, who cannot spend tens of thousands of dollars to protect themselves, citizen activists like me who receive no payment like myself are all these programs or line items have to protect them.
<
p>I say this even while away on vacation in Bethel, Maine for the week. With WiFi, even a citizen activist of rather mnodest means can monitor and join a discussion like this one.
<
p>I truly appreciate the availability BlueMassGroup and the work its editors do – I don’t think I mention that enough but this meaty discussion on the vetos is a fine example of an engaged citizen review of governmental acts.
Linehan said that he couldn’t close for $2.5m, that it would take $9m (over a few years) and a few years to close properly… in the absense of that sort of support, he would not be able to close responsibly… yes, possibly leading to euthanasia.
<
p>The governor cut their funding from $6.5m to $2.5m… they received $7.15m last year… his assertion that they want to be “held harmless” is such a joke, they took almost a 10% cut from last year… he wanted to give them a 67% cut from last year… what did he think was going to happen.
<
p>Bad call Gov.
Remember, the aquarium, chidren’s museum, and museum of science receive no state appropriation.
<
p>In FY04 the zoo’s budget was cut to $1.75 million and they were still able to operate. And in FY 03 their entire budget was 9c cut.
<
p>The point is, this has happened during previous budget crunches and the zoo has survived. Given the difficult choices we are facing, it seems reasonable to ask the zoo to do what many other agencies are doing – make do with less.
<
p>More info here.
Tourists don’t have an easy way to get to either of the zoos, nor are the zoos in the same class as those institutions. No doubt the Zoos can make do with less, but the drastic cut with no advance warning is especially harsh.
<
p>No doubt the Governor will be willing to fully fund his next campaign out of his own pocket, because many of us are going to be directing our spare cash to non-profits rather than to political coffers.
First, “make do with less” the issue is how much less and with how much lead time is workable, and, the tone of the discussion, the options actually available, and the benefit derived from the asset.
<
p>Not being on the Board of Zoo New England [wonder if they would be interested in my involvement with their fund raising – I have helped found various organizations and bring them to self-sustaining status, such as Arlington Children’s Theater] I don’t know what they do or how they make decisions any more than I know why the Governor singled out Zoo New England for a 67% funding cut.
<
p>Correct me if I am wrong, but a 67% funding cut is above-average, yes?
<
p>As to the demise of the North Shore Music Theater – I think that is a financial and cultural loss for the North Shore and if it had been a Boston facility, it would have been saved. Too bad no “angel” rode to the rescue, indeed. That is a financial and cultural loss and had someone of sufficient statute had the leadership ability and willingness to fight for it, maybe it would not be gone. Doug – you know many people of that stature with millions of dollars and high profiles. I don’t.
<
p>My work life is spent on behalf of struggling families, special needs teens, and trying to protect kids in foster care. A good month is one where, with effort, our families bills are paid on time.
<
p>Using the sad demise of the North Shore Music Theater as a counter point only brings attention to that major loss for an entire region, and that no rescue or “time-out” was negotiated – to all appearances – to prevent that economic and cultural loss.
I understand your concern, and the question of “how much” is a very important one. However, as everyone agress, we are in a tough economic climate that has severely impacted the state budget, and we are forced to make difficult choices. Every dollar we choose to spend in one area is a dollar we cannot spend in another area. Given this reality, we made a choice to make cuts in certain areas, like the zoo, so we could preserve services in other areas.
<
p>The zoo clearly leveraged the “threat” of closure and euthanasia to make their case for overriding the veto – that is their right. However, there are many other worthy causes that cannot get their issues on the front pages. The Governor is as concerned about these people as he is about the zoo, and is working hard to balance these interests and do what is in the best interests of the Commonwealth as a whole.
Doug – thank you for your response. Also, yes, it is the sheer magnitude of the veto on the Zoo New England funding – 67% that is concerning. The tough budget situation in which the Patrick administration finds itself is related to past tax cuts of the 90s, over reliance by this state on the Capitol Gains Tax, the major economic downturn, and the fear of the word “tax” on Beacon Hill. The Patrick Administration did not create the tax cuts of the 90s, the short-sighted over reliance on the Capitol Gains Tax, the economic downturn resulting from greed and deregulation, or the panic induced on Beacon Hill by the word “tax”. But yet “here we all are”.
<
p>The size of the veto regarding Zoo New England was a mistake. Pure and simple: Note that in the inter-connectedness of institutions, the Franklin Park Zoo serves the same kids I do – it is summer jobs, it is internships, it is access to animals and science learning for Boston Public School kids who would otherwise not have that access – and the comparison to the Children’s Museum is misleading; very much an “apples to cucumbers” comparison because the expenses of creating liveable worlds for so many living beings is just totally in another league!
<
p>If you and I were to sit down with the entire budget, and go over the vetoes and choices made, together, I am sure each of us would learn a great deal because our data sets and experiencial pathways have been so very different.
<
p>I do wonder whether any of those involved in this 2009 veto process within the Executive do have “real world grunt*” experience, though.
<
p>Experience on the ground, making do, working with people one on one is very different from academics or the certified public accountant type world.
<
p>The pre-veto funding for Zoo New England was already $800,000 less than last fiscal year according to their web site.
<
p>*Examples of ‘real world grunt’ are: DCF Social Worker, bar advocate, probation officer, Boston or Springfield elementary school teacher, Zoo New England veterinarian, etc.