City of Boston – Mayoral Race update
June 5, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Elections & Voting, Transparency
Kudos to Kevin McCrea for securing a place on this fall’s mayoral ballot. Mr. McCrea is an advocate for transparency in government. Such an initiative would be a welcome breath of air in Menino’s musty City Hall chambers.
Endangered Species: Female Democrats?
June 4, 2009 by Boston Patriot
Filed under Elections & Voting, Transparency
The impetus for this post originated with Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein. The bottom line: what do male Democrats have against their female counterparts?
A tip of the cap to Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein on this one:
Congress passed a res. yesterday for 30th anniv of Thatcher becoming 1st female PM. Mass. delegation all voted no, except Tsongas.
Much of the activity that takes place on the floor of the United States Congress (ditto The US Senate and most political bodies) is irrelevant, trivial pursuit, people looking for ways to justify their existence (and our votes). So let me say before I get into the meat of this post, that I believe that this motion and others like it generally have no place. There are plenty of Constitutionally-mandated duties Congress should follow, and if it did, life in America would be a lot better. Nonetheless, pn May 12,2009, the House Roll Call 245 passed with 339 Ayes, 64 Nays, 24 Abstaining, and 6 Presents. (The vote tally is here.) Had I been a member, I would have abstained or voted present. Of the 64 Nays, all were Democrats. Of the 174 Democrats who voted Aye, only one came from Massachusetts, not surprisingly, and the vote belonged to the Bay State’s sole female member: Niki Tsongas. And thus arises the question: why only Tsongas and why Tsongas at all. Presumably she’s no fan of the Iron Lady’s pro-growth fiscal policies (as am I). As such, she would be well within her rights to vote Nay with her Democrat colleagues. Had she chosen to do so, no one would have noticed or cared. Moreover, had the entire delegation voted to Abstain or vote present, no one would have noticed or cared either. Is it possible that male Democrats are hostile to powerful women? Might not Hillary Clinton answer (secretly, off the record), in the affirmative. It’s an open secret that many female Massachusetts Democrats are still miffed at the lack of support shown for Hillary Clinton by their male counterparts. It seems, at least on the surface, that women have no place in the Democrat tent, unless it’s one of subservience. Only one female has won statewide elective office in Massachusetts; for that matter, Tsongas is only the second woman to represent Massachusetts at the Congressional level, after a 25 year drought. How can this be, given the prominence of women in the Democrat Party and the omnipresence of Democrats in Massachusetts. I have no answers for you in this regard, only questions and observations. What doYOU think?
Yes, Governor, the laws DO apply to you
May 11, 2009 by kjainauditor
Filed under Transparency
Last week I met with MA State Senator Bob Hedlund or Weymouth to discuss transparency. When we sat down to chat, the Senator smiled and said my timing was impeccable as he and some other Senators were submitting amendments to the state’s public records laws — clearly at the heart of transparency and good government.
Senator Hedlund explained that Governor Patrick believed his office was exempt from the public records laws regarding transparency on spending and other activities. Hedlund and his Senate colleagues had a different interpretation of the laws, and have offered to amend the laws to remove any uncertainty. The package of amendments does more than clarify the applicability of public records laws on the Governor and the entire Executive branch, it also closes loopholes in campaign finance laws which give tremendous benefits to those in control of the Governor’s office.
It is my sincere and passionate hope that the state legislature will move quickly to clarify and strengthen public records laws, including any provisions which might apply to the legislature and the approximiately three dozen independent state agencies which are absent from most public discussions of state government spending and policy.
My hat’s off to Senator Hedlund and others in the legislature who are attempting to make these amendments to the laws which, for a change, are more onerous on the government itself than the governed.
Don’t let the baby drown – Use transparency to drain the cesspool
April 21, 2009 by kjainauditor
Filed under Transparency
Over the past 8-9 months I have been trying to obtain more information from the Massachusetts State Comptroller’s office and they have now gone from stonewalling me to outright ignoring me, no longer responding to my phone messages or emails. There is no one in government at any level that has an interest in actual transparency; it is an inherent conflict of their self-interest.
In my 13+ years of political activism I consistently hear from people that the things most important to them that government provides are local aid, education, public safety and transportation infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc. Those are what many consider “core functions” of government, and yet in Massachusetts they account for just over 20% of total state spending. That is a factoid that, while not all that hard to deduce, is not spoken about by our state government.
Similar “surprises” exist at the municipal level, though each city and town has its own pathology.
Whenever anyone calls for cutting government we immediately see threats of reductions in the 20% of core services. That is no accident. In fact, there is no shortage of politicians in the legislature and right up through current and former governors who have made clear that any reductions will deeply and severely impact those core services, and that the cuts will be made as painful as possible.
Some argue that you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that is an inappropriate metaphor. Trying to save a baby that’s drowning in a cesspool would more accurately depict the relative proportions and the murkiness of the situation. Only transparency can save the baby.
Does transparency have to cost a lot? Nope, not at all. Government already has the data and the technical potential to bring transparency about quickly and cheaply. Assuming no legal roadblocks, I could do it for the state government with a team of 10 people in about 6 months and a modest budget. Consider then that between the Massachusetts State Auditor’s Office and the Comptroller’s office there are over 450 employees according to the FY2009 limited data available online. Over 450 employees with millions of dollars in payroll and other expenses…and no transparency.
The only statewide office which could bring transparency to the people would be the State Auditor, and Joe DeNucci has proven in his nearly 22 years in office that transparency is not a priority. The State Auditor is a statewide constitutional officeholder elected by the people.
Snowflakes and Straws: Why Transparency Matters
March 15, 2009 by kjainauditor
Filed under Editorials, Transparency
Most of us are familiar with the question of which snowflake caused the avalanche. We know that no individual snowflake was the actual cause, but it’s a lesson that even harmless little snowflakes, accumulating in weight over time…can be deadly.
We’re also familiar with the idiom “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, and know that it wasn’t a particular straw responsible for breaking the camel’s back, it was the cumulative weight of all the straws which brought things to less than a straw’s weight away from the breaking point.
In both cases, if someone had been measuring and inspecting the situation, tragedy might have been averted. These days, people do actually monitor snow buildup and related conditions to predict the likelihood of an avalanche. Similarly, beasts of burden — be they actual animals or commercial vehicles — are generally monitored to ensure they are not overloaded.
The takeaway here is that by managing things properly, we can often avoid bad outcomes. CPAs are often fond of saying, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”
In democracies such as ours, the people are supposed to be the ultimate authority — we are the Board of Directors. The official Commonwealth of Massachusetts organizational chart even depicts this, with the Governor, Legislature and all state departments being subordinate to the people.
That means we the people are ultimately responsible for managing how things run. And that’s where we run into a problem, because we can’t manage what we can’t measure, and the state government — which reports to us — won’t provide transparency into how it operates. Unlike snowflakes, government programs come with significant costs and risk, and are often riddled with waste, fraud and abuse.
In our personal lives, when we hear “budget”, as in our household budget or the departmental budget where we work, we equate that to total spending and income.
Massachusetts state government takes over 40% of the total amount they spend each year and classifies it as “non-budget”, “capital” and “other”. The remaining 60% or so, which was about $28 billion in fiscal year 2008, is called “the budget”.
As a result, most of us are looking at how $28 billion is being spent, and we’re not even aware of another $21 billion the state government spent. No matter what you call it, over 40% of total state government spending isn’t even discussed by the people who work for us, so how can we even begin to manage things?
A tenacious person CAN find all the top-level buckets of “budget”, “non-budget”, “capital” and “other” which do roughly add up to the total state government spending! That’s the good news. The bad news is that person would quickly find that there is no way to figure out how all that money is actually spent because expenditures are grouped into line items which can include any number of things which add up to amounts ranging from thousands to billions of dollars.
Just as with snowflakes and straws, each government expenditure may seem harmless and justified, perhaps even good — but unless we can see every one, there is no way we can manage them. Only total government transparency will allow us to prevent more fiscal avalanches and broken taxpayer backs.
