State law is clear that the Secretary of Administration and Finance must inform the legislature at least 60 days before raising fees and hold a public hearing at least 30 days before raising fees. In the case of this particular fee, it appears that the notice was given more than one year in advance.
According to the Senate Journal of December 15, 2008, “A communication from the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (pursuant to Section 3B of Chapter 7 of the General Laws) giving notice of its intention to amend 801 CMR 4.02: Fees for Licenses, Permits, and Services to be Charged to State Agencies (received Thursday, December 11, 2008),- was placed on file.”
On January 6, 2009, the House Journal reports that a communication “From the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (under the provisions of Section 3B Chapter 7 of the General Laws) submitting proposed amendments to 801 CMR 4.02 and 801 CMR 4.08” was “placed on file.”
On February 17, 2009, the RMV announced a public hearing would be held March 16 to consider the proposed fee changes. The announcement included a link to the fee changes themselves. The $5.00 “Branch Transaction Administrative Fee” is clearly marked as a change.
The current list of fees posted at the Executive Office for Administration and Finance was amended on January 22, 2010 to include the new fee (see page 42).
The Senate was told, the House was told, a public hearing was held, no one raised a stink, so the revenue projections for the FY2010 budget were made including revenue from this fee. The House and Senate pass the budget, Governor Patrick signs it, and everyone is happy until the fee kicks in, consumers get outraged, and legislators pretend that if they had actually been informed of this despicable fee they would have stopped it.
Again, baloney.
But while legislators have no reason to be outraged, consumers do. The RMV absolutely misled consumers about this change, despite their protestations to the contrary. Back to the Herald:
The RMV has done little to raise awareness of the fee. It was mentioned on an obscure RMV blog posting on Saturday. An internal memo obtained by the Herald says there will not be a promotion of the fee.“Customer advertising . . . will not include the administrative fee separately, but rather the stated renewal or duplicate fee will be listed as $5 greater,” wrote RMV officials in the memo.
Looking through the RMV’s archives, it is clear that they had no intention of letting people know of the increase. There are a number of official releases that specifically promote online usage. While those would seem to be the perfect place to remind customers that using online services would save money because fees will rise in 2010, none mention the increase. In fact, the official fee schedule “revised February 2010” does not even list the fee, even though it was to go into effect March 1.
Obviously, they were trying to hide it. They had an entire year to tell everyone that they had better go online or they were going to be charged a fee. It should have been in every press release about web services, posted on the web site, noted in every mailing, and advertised prominently in each branch. Why didn’t they?
Well, I think we all know the reason. The RMV has to balance out the savings they get from having people use the web with the fees they would generate by charging everyone who comes into the branches. Apparently there is more to gain by collecting the fees than there is by saving money through on-line transactions.
Well, today the governor responded by rescinding the fees. It was probably the best thing he could do given the situation. This isn’t a bad fee. We should be encouraging our state agencies to be more efficient, and one of the ways to do that is to move people to online transactions.
We should also encourage our legislators to read the communications from the executive secretaries so they know what government is doing. That’s why the communications are required. And we should encourage the RMV to be honest with consumers, and worry more about customer service than raising money.
Cross posted at NoDrumlins.
They do this all the time. Same thing when Lebovidge wanted to take on the toll collectors. Yes, cutting services / raising fees is unpopular. File that under no shit. But if you don’t have the stones to just once stand by your decisions, then don’t make the decision in the first place.
<
p>The only thing worse that looking unpopular is looking weak and unpopular.
<
p>Isn’t this where Doug steps in to defend Deval’s honor?
…you have some good connections within the Patrick Administration.
<
p>The reality is, this stuff isn’t widely circulated. It isn’t Emailed out to every legislative office. If someone wanted to know what was going on with these fee hikes, they would have had to do some serious digging.
<
p>In fact, go to the RMV’s “news” page from 2009. Now go find the posting that includes the link to the $5 in-person service fee you trumpeted so loudly in your posting. You can’t, because its not there.
<
p>Just because something has a hyperlink, doesn’t mean it posted in a clear, conspicuous manner for people to find and review.
The legislature wrote the law in such a way that they have to be told in advance of any fee increases. There are 200 legislators and, what, 300, 400 staffers? Not one person looks at this stuff before it goes into effect? The legislature is not doing its job if it is not using the oversight responsibilities it reserved for itself when it passed the law in the first place.
<
p>I’m flattered that you think I have connections, but I was able to look all of the stuff up myself. The governor is not without blame. He tried to suggest that he didn’t know about it either. While he personally may not have known, his office must have. It was his head of the RMV and his Secretary of Administration and Finance that had to file the fee changes.