Suzanne Bump, the new Auditor has it right in deciding to audit the so-called “tax expenditure budget”
The auditor’s office carried out an initial review of 91 of the 203 programs in the tax expenditures budget that have significant business ramifications, collectively valued at $2.2 billion.
The review found that of those 91 incentives:
– Only eight have a sunset clause, or a time set in the future to review its usefulness.
– Only 10 have provisions allowing the state to attempt to recoup money for unmet obligations.
– Just 19 require the recipient to report to some state entity on various aspects of the expenditure.
– Nineteen have public disclosure requirements.
– Only 17 have any special, identifiable oversight procedures.
Bump said she supports several bills that would establish a regular oversight process for tax incentives.
Her office said it plans next to conduct audits of oversight measures from a select sample of tax breaks. Auditors will look at how eligibility for favorable tax treatment is verified and whether it accomplishes its goal of economic development.
Part of our problem is the black box, no sunset clause business giveaways.
Another issue is the micromanagement by Beacon Hill; did you know our state is the only state with a separate line item for each court? Another problem is the reality that neither Open Meeting laws nor Freedom of Informaton-type laws apply to the Massachusetts legislature.
There is neither openness, nor accountability in the legislative budget process in this State.
The latest? The Speaker has announced a closed door, no press “caucus” the very day the budget comes out where “members can air their priorities”.
The members should not tolerate this procedure of closed door discussion only. There are more new legislators – more than 40 – more than will likely be seated in one election again for a long long time. How about some “house cleaning”?
Members will not “air” their priorities in the procedure the Speaker outlined – it looks more like leadership will demand member obeisance behind those closed doors to Room 348.
I remember when there WAS actual budget “debate”. It took longer. It was “messy” – but Democracy IS messy. I sat in the gallery and watched real discussion leading to real changes in the budget back in those days.
Legislators – remember why you sought election in the first place! Remember your hopes and goals.
Please don’t discuss your budget priorities behind closed doors in Room 348 – do it in the open, on the floor of the House! If not now, when? If not you, than who will stand up for democracy in the birth place of democracy?
Wow….good for Suzanne Bump. Let’s see if the legislature follows her lead.
It’s wonderful, and rather novel, to see an auditor do some actual auditing….
…to make open meeting laws apply to the legislature. I’m a town official, and I have to abide by it – there’s no reason they can’t!
…because it directly relates to governance in a way that the legislature itself is too vested in. However, I’d like to see some reforms to make especially the part about deliberations a little more reasonable and I’d be reluctant to support a question that asks whether the open meeting law which governs local bodies should apply exactly as is to the legislature and it’s committees.
<
p>Editing note: Can we get Susanne changed to Suzanne in the original diary? Especially on the front page I think it’s important to get basics like name-spelling correct.
The Legislature has shown their disdain for ballot initiatives that pass that they don’t like over the years. Do you / we really think that the Legislature would abide by the results of the vote? They have consistently applied the “Do as I say not as I do” philosophy to applicability of laws so I am not convinced that this would be any different.
<
p>I am in total agreement that open meeting laws need to apply to the Legislature. I am not convinced that a ballot question is the best way to get there. I could be convinced if there was enough financial support for the initiative to not only support the passage of the ballot question but also the potential (and in my mind probable) need for a lawsuit to make sure that the Legislature abides by the People’s will.
I honestly doubt they’d undo the results because of the backlash.