CLT UPDATE
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The astonishing arrogance of our
imperious governor
Members of the media and public trying to peek behind
the curtains of the governor's office have been stymied in recent years
by a legal argument that the governor's records are not public documents
the office must disclose.
Now anti-tax advocate Barbara Anderson is fighting this legal
argument, saying the governor's office is indeed subject to the state's
public records law....
Attorney Kimberley Keyes said the Lambert decision does not say the
governor's office is exempt from the public records law, but that
judicial questionnaires submitted to the Judicial Nominating Council are
not subject to the law. She said records in the governor's office that
carry a public function could be subject to the public records law.
"I would not take from Lambert the proposition that the governor's
office is always completely exempt from the public records law," said
Keyes, an attorney at Boston law firm Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP....
Anderson acknowledged she would not have sent in the public records
request if Patrick had not told the media he was seeking the
cost-cutting recommendations from his department heads.
"If he hadn't made such a big deal out of being a man of the people and
(having an) open administration ... then I wouldn't have," she said.
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Battle over governor's records
Governor Deval Patrick's administration is preparing a push
to give Massachusetts cities and towns more freedom to raise taxes and fees, as
a new report suggests Boston will lose talent and businesses to other
similarly-sized cities because it is hamstrung by state constraints....
As that effort begins, a 200-page report to be released by The Boston Foundation
today concludes that six other cities are better able to adapt in an
increasingly competitive battle to attract people and commercial enterprises
because they have more flexibility to find their own revenue sources to take
pressure off property taxes....
Overturning or weakening the century-old restrictions on cities' abilities to
raise their taxes is attractive to the Patrick administration because it would
provide more funding while avoiding the need for a statewide tax increase....
Nearly 60 percent of Boston's revenue comes from property taxes, compared with
10 percent in Denver, 20 percent in Atlanta, and 25 percent in New York....
"We're in a different environment of fiscal tightness and there's a need for
cities and towns to react more quickly to these conditions, and they're less
able to do that in Massachusetts," said Samuel R. Tyler, president of the Boston
Municipal Research Bureau, a business-funded government watchdog.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Patrick seeks tax freedom for cities, towns
Boston and other Massachusetts communities have been treated
as delinquent children much too long. Now is the time for the state to bring
about an entirely new relationship in which cities and towns are seen as
responsible adults.
It is not simply a matter of common sense. The region's economic health suffers
as Boston, hamstrung by misbegotten constraints that should have died out
decades ago, struggles to compete. A new report from The Boston Foundation
documents the handicaps Boston faces compared with other major US cities....
But what is needed now is not simply one or two new taxes, but a broad grant of
authority and flexibility -- a fundamental modernization of a relationship that
reeks of mold from nearly a century ago, when, in the familiar story, Yankees
lost City Hall to the Irish, but kept control from the State House.
A Boston Globe editorial
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Give Boston the car keys
It took some linguistic agility for The Boston Globe’s
editors to avoid putting Gov. Deval Patrick’s name and tax hikes into the same
headline yesterday. So granting cities and towns the power to tax your next
cheeseburger is heretofore designated “tax freedom” on Morrissey Boulevard.
Clever.
Whatever they want to call it, as lawmakers consider whether to go along with
Patrick’s local option tax plans, they ought to pay attention to how cities and
towns exercise a freedom they already have: The freedom to negotiate
fiscally-responsible contracts with public employee unions....
And so is the fight about giving cities and towns the “freedom” to raise taxes.
The question is, why should taxpayers pay more if unions aren’t willing to be
reasonable about accepting less?
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Where’s the beef in ‘tax freedom’?
Call it pork for public unions
By Virginia Buckingham
But the report also suggests that the city should have the
power to slap a tax on anything that isn’t nailed down -- and to borrow whatever
it needs. And that’s where the law professors (yes, law professors) who authored
the report lost us.
The Boston Foundation study compares the Hub to six major American cities -- New
York, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Denver and Chicago -- and concludes that
the narrow home-rule system here is overly burdensome. Without the power to
diversify its revenue sources, Boston is at a competitive disadvantage at a
critical time in its history, the report says.
Denver, the authors note brightly, has a lodger’s tax, a telecommunications tax,
a franchise tax, a car rental tax, a food and beverage and liquor stores tax, a
facilities development admissions tax and an aviation fuel tax.
Oh, and a city wage tax, too.
And we want to be more like Denver, why, exactly?! ...
Gov. Deval Patrick has glommed onto the local option tax idea; he plans to
detail a proposal on that and other municipal reforms today. For Boston’s sake,
let’s hope he has a better solution than we found in this study.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Study: No problem a new tax can’t fix
Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing to consolidate power in the
executive branch by asserting greater control over scores of boards and
commissions that currently act independently of his office in several key policy
areas.
Power grab is not the term Patrick uses to describe his maneuvering, but the
governmental reorganization plan he is drafting seeks to give him greater
authority in such areas as transportation, education and state finances.
The Boston Herald
Friday, February 9th, 2007
Patrick wants more control
Throwing caution to the political wind, Gov. Deval Patrick is
hopping state police helicopters for beat-the-traffic trips, and aides say he’ll
keep using the taxpayer-funded chopper chauffeur despite his predecessor Jane
Swift’s public slapdown for similar flights.
“The state police helicopter is there for his use when he needs it for official
business,” said Patrick spokeswoman Cyndi Roy....
Barbara Anderson, spokeswoman for the Citizens for Limited Taxation,
said the museum event and swearing-in ceremonies were not of “benefit to the
taxpayers” and questioned Patrick’s liberal policy on using the gas-guzzling
aircraft.
“Apparently he’s going to appreciate the perks of the office more than the
Republican governors did,” Anderson said.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Deval says copter at his service:
Officials say he will use pricey mode of transit as he sees fit
Gov. Deval Patrick angrily defended his use of a state police
helicopter yesterday, vowing to continue taking the taxpayer-funded sky shuttle
whenever he sees fit.
“My policy is to use all the resources at my disposal to be the governor of the
whole state,” Patrick huffed at the State House....
The governor’s office refused to provide the taxpayer cost of the trips,
referring questions to state police. A state police spokesman said the
department does not provide individual trip cost breakdowns.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 14, 2006
Flying off the handle:
Patrick vehemently defends copter use
Deval, obviously, was taken aback by this lese majeste by a
reporter. He’s not used to being questioned, about anything. He’s the king, and
he was surrounded by his vassals, the Local Government Advisory Commission --
municipal mendicants with their hands out for more local aid.
“I don’t care,” one shrew shrieked, “how often he uses the helicopter.” ...
Now we know why Deval doesn’t plan to do anything about police details. Better
to stick to the really important stuff, like refusing to sign a Ronald Reagan
proclamation, and trying to gut the CORI law for the benefit of Benjamin LaGuer
and all the Benjamin LaGuers to come.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 14, 2006
Air Deval’s take on using (or abusing) job perks?
Just do it
By Howie Carr
Jane Swift backers are flying into a rage because the former
acting governor was put through the ringer over her use of a state police
helicopter, while Gov. Deval Patrick seems to be getting a free ride on the same
issue....
“They certainly deserve the same level of scrutiny,” said state GOP spokesman
Brian Dodge. “These are public resources. His comments don’t seem to take
seriously enough the public concern about his use of these resources.” ...
Bridgewater State College professor Dr. George Serra said both pols “should be
held to the same standard.”
“Whenever you’re using transportation that involves taxpayer dollars for
questionable reasons, you shouldn’t do it,” Serra said.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Gov’s copter rides don’t fly with Swift supporters
Governor Deval Patrick is proposing a tough new mandate for
the state's cities and towns: If your pension system isn't performing, we're
taking the money and investing it ourselves.
As part of a municipal relief package Patrick is to unveil today, approximately
one-third of the state's 107 public pension funds would be forced to turn over
nearly $5 billion in assets for investment by the state....
The proposal, which would encroach on an often jealously guarded function of
local government, must be approved by the Legislature, which has cast doubt
recently on another aspect of Patrick's municipal agenda, his proposal to allow
cities and towns to impose a small local meals tax on restaurants. An effort to
take control of the pension funds could spark criticism from local governments,
who have put their hope in Patrick after years of depressed local aid and
increasing property taxes....
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Patrick targets pension systems
State would take over underperforming funds
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
He said -- or didn't say -- whatever was necessary to
get himself elected. The election is over, his governing has
begun, the real Deval Patrick is revealing himself as an imperial
governor.
He's taken the ceremonial title "His Excellency the
Governor" to soaring new heights, apparently now seeing himself as the
Bay State Sun King; answerable to none, unlimited in power. Where
he confronts a limit he finds beneath his station, he strives to stretch
his power by whatever means or to overturn the limit that's in his way.
Gov. Patrick is defining himself and his governing
style, and it's becoming scarier by the day. Like some Third-World
dictator, the self-proclaimed man of the common people is steadily
morphing into a power-crazed autocrat obsessed with elevating his
position and power, expanding the office of governor to satisfy his
ambition.
He's reminding me more every day of Venezuela's
socialist president,
Hugo
Chávez: once elected running roughshod over representative
government in his quest for limitless power. It won't surprise me
much if Patrick eventually attempts amending the constitution as Chávez
did, to allow himself to become governor-for-life and to rule by
executive decree!
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Battle over governor's records
By Emelie Rutherford/Daily News staff
Members of the media and public trying to peek behind the curtains of
the governor's office have been stymied in recent years by a legal
argument that the governor's records are not public documents the office
must disclose.
Now anti-tax advocate Barbara Anderson is fighting this legal
argument, saying the governor's office is indeed subject to the state's
public records law.
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said she
plans to appeal a denial of her public records request to Gov. Deval
Patrick's office. She unsuccessfully sought from Patrick's office copies
of documents the governor's department heads submitted to him last month
about ways to trim their budgets.
Michael Pineault, Patrick's deputy chief counsel, wrote to Anderson on
Feb. 5 to say that under a 1997 state Supreme Judicial Court decision
"the Office of the Governor is not one of the instrumentalities
enumerated in (state law) ... whose records are subject to disclosure
under the public records law."
Anderson said she rejects "this overly broad interpretation."
She argued the SJC decision, Lambert v. Executive Director of the
Judicial Nominating Committee, does not apply to all records of the
governor's office.
The state's supervisor of public records and an attorney said some of
the governor's documents are considered public records.
Alan Cote, supervisor of public records in Secretary of State William
Galvin's office, said under the Lambert decision some records of the
governor's office are public, but records of the governor that deal with
his discretionary authority are not public.
Cote said there is much confusion and disagreement about how the Lambert
decision impacts public records of the governor's office.
He said the governor's office has used the Lambert decision to deny
public records requests since former Gov. Paul Cellucci was in office.
Attorney Kimberley Keyes said the Lambert decision does not say the
governor's office is exempt from the public records law, but that
judicial questionnaires submitted to the Judicial Nominating Council are
not subject to the law. She said records in the governor's office that
carry a public function could be subject to the public records law.
"I would not take from Lambert the proposition that the governor's
office is always completely exempt from the public records law," said
Keyes, an attorney at Boston law firm Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP.
Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan in a statement called Patrick "one of
the most accessible chief executives this state has had in a number of
years.
"When it comes to requests for documents we look at them on a
case-by-case basis and focus on whether releasing them will adversely
impact on-going policy discussions," Sullivan said.
Anderson acknowledged she would not have sent in the public records
request if Patrick had not told the media he was seeking the
cost-cutting recommendations from his department heads.
"If he hadn't made such a big deal out of being a man of the people and
(having an) open administration ... then I wouldn't have," she said.
Pineault wrote to Anderson that regardless of the Lambert decision her
requested documents would not be subject to the public records law
because of an exemption for memoranda related to policy deliberations.
Anderson said she will send her appeal to Cote's office this week.
Patrick's office also denied a public records request from the Daily
News this month that sought the governor's complete January schedule.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Patrick seeks tax freedom for cities, towns
By Matt Viser, Globe Staff
Governor Deval Patrick's administration is preparing a push to give
Massachusetts cities and towns more freedom to raise taxes and fees, as
a new report suggests Boston will lose talent and businesses to other
similarly-sized cities because it is hamstrung by state constraints.
The effort is likely to encounter resistance in the Legislature, but the
governor has begun making a case for helping cities and towns. As that
effort begins, a 200-page report to be released by The Boston Foundation
today concludes that six other cities are better able to adapt in an
increasingly competitive battle to attract people and commercial
enterprises because they have more flexibility to find their own revenue
sources to take pressure off property taxes.
"Those that have a better legal structure are doing things that we
cannot do," said Gerald Frug, a professor at Harvard Law School and
coauthor of the study. "And the cumulative effect of that is worrisome."
Boston, along with many other Massachusetts cities and towns, has
contended for years that it is too dependent on state funds because it
is prohibited by state law from raising revenue through local sales
taxes, meals taxes, or other means.
And because state aid is not keeping up with increases in municipal
budgets under pressure from rising costs, Patrick suggested yesterday
that he is considering ways to relax the restrictions.
"We have to look at ways to help local communities help themselves on
both the revenue side and on the cost side," Patrick said.
Patrick said allowing local officials to raise taxes such as a meals tax
would not benefit all communities equally, and so he is exploring other
possibilities.
Today, the governor is planning to name a director of municipal affairs
to work with local leaders on a range of issues, including giving cities
and towns more authority over their tax structure. Tomorrow he is
expected to announce a package of legislation to help muncipalities.
Overturning or weakening the century-old restrictions on cities'
abilities to raise their taxes is attractive to the Patrick
administration because it would provide more funding while avoiding the
need for a statewide tax increase.
But the Legislature has been reluctant to cede power on taxes to local
governments; legislation allowing cities to institute a meals tax has
consistently failed on Beacon Hill in recent years.
"It's been resoundingly defeated by the House in the past, and we have
no reason to think that opposition has changed," said David Guarino,
spokesman for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Still, some proponents of local taxes say some lawmakers may be more
receptive this time. After 16 years of Republican governors, Patrick may
give Democrats more cover to vote for legislation that could be labeled
"pro-tax" by conservative opponents, they said.
The Boston Foundation report looks at six other cities -- Atlanta,
Chicago, Denver, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle -- and argues that
the Hub is hampered by requirements that cities and towns gain approval
from the state Legislature on a variety of issues.
"There's this web of constraints that means the city has to go hat in
hand to the Legislature for a very large number of things that other
cities can do on their own," said Paul Grogan, president of The Boston
Foundation. "This thicket of restrictions and regulations make Boston
less competitive than it could be and less of a potent economic factor."
Despite a nationwide return-to-the-cities movement, Boston's population
is growing at a much slower rate than that of other cities, according to
the report, in part because of the high cost of housing. Nearly 60
percent of Boston's revenue comes from property taxes, compared with 10
percent in Denver, 20 percent in Atlanta, and 25 percent in New York.
"If you're relying on prop taxes as your only source of income, you want
to have them increase. Your whole tax structure works against
affordability," Frug said.
Like many other US cities, Boston currently can impose taxes on hotel
rooms, jet fuel, and motor vehicles. Other cities have an array of other
taxes. Denver, for example, has a car rental tax. Atlanta taxes
insurance premiums. San Francisco has a parking tax.
Every other city looked at in the study also collected at least a
portion of the sales tax generated in the city. But sales taxes from
Boston and other Massachusetts cities go into a statewide pot, and the
funds are distributed through local aid that varies from year to year --
removing some local incentives to increase economic activity, according
to the study.
"We're in a different environment of fiscal tightness and there's a need
for cities and towns to react more quickly to these conditions, and
they're less able to do that in Massachusetts," said Samuel R. Tyler,
president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a business-funded
government watchdog. "Even small little issues like storage fees for
towed vehicles require the city to go to the Legislature. Those things
are getting to the point of micromanaging and should be at the
discretion of the city or town."
City councils, boards of selectmen, and other local boards send hundreds
of home rule petitions to the state Legislature each year. Mayor Thomas
M. Menino said through a spokeswoman yesterday that he supported the
changes.
Two years ago Boston had to ask the state Legislature for permission to
increase its fees for towing cars from $12 -- a fee that was so low it
cost the city money to tow parking scofflaws -- to $90.
"These laws are outdated and don't work for today's economy," said
Menino's spokeswoman, Dot Joyce. "We need more tools to be more
responsive to today's economy without having to lobby Beacon Hill every
step of the way."
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Boston Globe editorial
Give Boston the car keys
Boston and other Massachusetts communities have been treated as
delinquent children much too long. Now is the time for the state to
bring about an entirely new relationship in which cities and towns are
seen as responsible adults.
It is not simply a matter of common sense. The region's economic health
suffers as Boston, hamstrung by misbegotten constraints that should have
died out decades ago, struggles to compete. A new report from The Boston
Foundation documents the handicaps Boston faces compared with other
major US cities. It is a compelling story.
Across America, cities and towns are "creatures" of their state; the
states created municipal government and reserve the right to change it
any time. But other states have given their cities and towns broad
authority to determine their own destinies. Boston is bound not only by
strictures on its options for raising revenue, but also by state
limitations on the ability to finance major projects over time, to set
up business improvement districts, and to manage and pay for schools.
Most big cities have control over their ports, airports, and major
transportation facilities, but Boston has little clout with the
authorities that run those operations here.
The cities examined in the Boston Foundation report are Atlanta,
Chicago, Denver, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. The massive,
204-page study was conducted by two Harvard Law professors, Gerald E.
Frug and David J. Barron, both local government specialists, who
conclude that Boston often suffers from pessimism based on the fear that
"legal hurdles are too onerous to overcome."
Among many dramatic findings is their calculation that Boston's heavy
reliance on the property tax -- for 58 percent of total revenues in 2003
-- is more than double that of any of the other cities. Seattle was next
highest at 27 percent; Denver lowest at 10.
Boston has made futile requests to the Legislature for permission to tax
meals and telecommunications property. The city should have this
authority, as others do.
But what is needed now is not simply one or two new taxes, but a broad
grant of authority and flexibility -- a fundamental modernization of a
relationship that reeks of mold from nearly a century ago, when, in the
familiar story, Yankees lost City Hall to the Irish, but kept control
from the State House.
Boston should be proud to show tourists its historical legacy in its
buildings and monuments, but not in its government.
Any power shift is difficult. But Governor Patrick and the Legislature,
rightly concerned about the state's economic future, should embrace this
reform just as parents celebrate their grown children.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Where’s the beef in ‘tax freedom’?
Call it pork for public unions
By Virginia Buckingham
It took some linguistic agility for The Boston Globe’s editors to avoid
putting Gov. Deval Patrick’s name and tax hikes into the same headline
yesterday. So granting cities and towns the power to tax your next
cheeseburger is heretofore designated “tax freedom” on Morrissey
Boulevard. Clever.
Whatever they want to call it, as lawmakers consider whether to go along
with Patrick’s local option tax plans, they ought to pay attention to
how cities and towns exercise a freedom they already have: The freedom
to negotiate fiscally-responsible contracts with public employee unions.
Case in point is the chief advocate of the cheeseburger tax, Mayor Tom
Menino, and his negotiations with the Boston Teachers Union.
To the mayor’s credit, he is holding the line on a couple of issues
which matter far more to the quantity of cash in the city’s treasury
(and quality in the city’s classrooms) than whether he has to ask
Speaker Sal DiMasi to increase the towing fine.
The most important of those should be the least contentious -- the level
of contribution teachers make to their managed health care plans. (And
since the teachers’ contract will be the blueprint for negotiations with
public safety unions, how much teachers pay toward their health care
benefits will mirror what police and fire personnel pay for theirs.)
Menino is pushing for the exceedingly modest split of 85/15, phased in
over four years, that is, the city will pay 85 percent of health care
costs and teachers would pay 15 percent. Take a look, readers, at your
own paychecks and you’ll surely agree this a good deal for city
employees. Their current deal of 90/10 is so out of step with most
employee benefit packages that it can rightly be housed in that
pie-in-the-sky fiscal arena once dubbed “cloud-cuckoo land.”
A 2006 report from the Boston Municipal Research Bureau lays out the
financial squeeze resulting from the city’s rising health care bill in
stark terms.
Boston’s health care costs have risen some 92 percent in the last six
years, or an average of 11 percent a year. All other operating spending
rose just 18 percent, or an average of 3 percent a year. Even more eye
opening, the bureau calculated that it takes the annual property tax
payments of five average taxpayers to pay the city’s share of the annual
health care premium of just one city employee’s family, some $14,000.
That’s just nuts.
Commonsense reforms supported by the bureau include allowing
municipalities to join the state Group Insurance Commission and
excluding benefit contributions from the collective bargaining process.
Any comprehensive municipal relief package approved on Beacon Hill will
include these, with no collective bargaining strings attached.
But until he’s given such tools, Menino should stick to his guns and
fight for this small uptick in teachers’ contributions as well as a
reasonable overall compensation package closer to his offer of 11
percent growth over four years to the teachers’ 20 percent.
An issue Menino has made some progress with the unions on is expanding
the powers of headmasters in underperforming schools. Menino wants
school leaders to have more flexibility in hiring and firing teachers
and to add an hour of learning time to the school day, among other
changes.
But with the union doing some saber rattling on class size, it’s worth
looking at its contention, mostly false, that this is the real obstacle
to a contract. The city wanted to maintain, with a minor tweak, the
wiggle room of adding a student or two to a class total without having
to assume the expense of hiring new teachers in some limited
circumstances. As of yesterday, the city was willing to back down on
this minor change. That should expose the reality that the fight is
really about money.
And so is the fight about giving cities and towns the “freedom” to raise
taxes. The question is, why should taxpayers pay more if unions aren’t
willing to be reasonable about accepting less?
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 15, 2007
A Boston Herald editorial
Study: No problem a new tax can’t fix
The city of Boston should not have to beg the Legislature every time it
wants to change a light bulb. So concludes a new study that says the Hub
deserves far more legal authority than it has now to “control its own
destiny.”
Fair enough.
But the report also suggests that the city should have the power to slap
a tax on anything that isn’t nailed down -- and to borrow whatever it
needs. And that’s where the law professors (yes, law professors) who
authored the report lost us.
The Boston Foundation study compares the Hub to six major American
cities -- New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Denver and Chicago
-- and concludes that the narrow home-rule system here is overly
burdensome. Without the power to diversify its revenue sources, Boston
is at a competitive disadvantage at a critical time in its history, the
report says.
Denver, the authors note brightly, has a lodger’s tax, a
telecommunications tax, a franchise tax, a car rental tax, a food and
beverage and liquor stores tax, a facilities development admissions tax
and an aviation fuel tax.
Oh, and a city wage tax, too.
And we want to be more like Denver, why, exactly?!
We can get behind the call to grant the city some additional powers,
starting with the right to establish Business Improvement Districts
without legislative approval. They’ve been used successfully in New York
(Times Square the prime example) but Boston’s efforts have been
thwarted.
And if Boston wants to hike the city fee for towing cars, what business
is it of a state rep from North Adams, for crying out loud?
But it simply defies logic that to make a high-cost city like Boston
more competitive -- more attractive to visitors, transplants and new
businesses -- that we have to tax them all more. If only we had a city
income tax, surely Fidelity wouldn’t move any of its jobs to Texas, now
would it!
Gov. Deval Patrick has glommed onto the local option tax idea; he plans
to detail a proposal on that and other municipal reforms today. For
Boston’s sake, let’s hope he has a better solution than we found in this
study.
The Boston Herald
Friday, February 9th, 2007
Patrick wants more control
By Casey Ross
Gov. Deval Patrick is pushing to consolidate power in the executive
branch by asserting greater control over scores of boards and
commissions that currently act independently of his office in several
key policy areas.
Power grab is not the term Patrick uses to describe his maneuvering, but
the governmental reorganization plan he is drafting seeks to give him
greater authority in such areas as transportation, education and state
finances.
The governor gives the broad outlines of the plan in his weekly podcast
(Read the Transcript Here), which was posted online today. It remains to
be seen whether the Legislature, which fought vigorously against some of
former Gov. Mitt Romney’s reorganization efforts, will put up the same
kind of opposition to Patrick’s plans.
In the governor’s words, the problem is this:
“I’d have to be in my third term before I got control of all these
different boards and commissions. I think the people elected me to
deliver on a particular agenda, and I need to do that, so I’m looking to
get the tools to do that. Let’s set this to rest: I’m not looking to
blow up every board and commission or quasi independent. I will work
with any that are interested in being part of this team, but I have a
job to do and I want the tools to do it.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Deval says copter at his service:
Officials say he will use pricey mode of transit as he sees fit
By Dave Wedge
Throwing caution to the political wind, Gov. Deval Patrick is hopping
state police helicopters for beat-the-traffic trips, and aides say he’ll
keep using the taxpayer-funded chopper chauffeur despite his predecessor
Jane Swift’s public slapdown for similar flights.
“The state police helicopter is there for his use when he needs it for
official business,” said Patrick spokeswoman Cyndi Roy.
“The governor during the campaign pledged to be governor of the entire
state,” she added. “He’s not going to be a governor who sits in his
office on Beacon Hill.”
Patrick used the State Police Air Wing on Jan. 17 after touring the
Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art in North Adams. The governor,
who had been in office only two weeks, had the chopper fly him from
North Adams to Boston so he could attend swearing-in ceremonies for
Auditor Joseph DeNucci and Treasurer Tim Cahill.
Last week, Patrick used the helicopter again, taking a round trip to
Hyannis for the funeral of a Centerville soldier killed in Iraq. He took
the chopper because he had to be back in Boston for afternoon budget
meetings, Roy said.
Asked about Patrick’s policy on using the expensive mode of
transportation, Roy said: “When schedules are tight and he has official
business in various regions of the state, then we’ll evaluate on a
case-by-case basis whether he should use the helicopter.”
On Jan. 17, the chopper was summoned from Westover Air Base in Chicopee
to airlift Patrick to Boston from North Adams after an 8:30 a.m. meeting
and tour of the museum. The governor was the only passenger, according
to state police records. The North Adams museum is 135 miles from
Boston.
Two state police pilots were also on board the flight, which used 100
gallons of jet fuel. Helicopter gas prices usually range from $2.50 to
$4 per gallon, but the cost of Patrick’s trip was not immediately
available.
Former acting Gov. Swift came under fire in 2000, when she was
lieutenant governor, for having state police fly her home to the
Berkshires for Thanksgiving at a total cost of $1,000. Ethics officials
cleared her of any wrongdoing, but the ill-advised chopper ride caused
her political image to crash.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney used the state police helicopter just once
during his four-year term for a flight over Boston Harbor with public
safety officials to view an LNG tanker fuel delivery, Romney spokesman
Eric Fehrnstrom said.
“Every governor is different,” Fehrnstrom said. “Generally speaking,
Gov. Romney used the helicopter in connection with homeland security or
disaster relief, but not as an ordinary means of transportation.”
Barbara Anderson, spokeswoman for the Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said the museum event and swearing-in ceremonies were not
of “benefit to the taxpayers” and questioned Patrick’s liberal policy on
using the gas-guzzling aircraft.
“Apparently he’s going to appreciate the perks of the office more than
the Republican governors did,” Anderson said.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 14, 2006
Flying off the handle:
Patrick vehemently defends copter use
By Dave Wedge
Gov. Deval Patrick angrily defended his use of a state police helicopter
yesterday, vowing to continue taking the taxpayer-funded sky shuttle
whenever he sees fit.
“My policy is to use all the resources at my disposal to be the governor
of the whole state,” Patrick huffed at the State House.
The Herald reported yesterday that Patrick had the chopper fly him from
a North Adams museum Jan. 17 to the Beacon Hill swearing-in of Auditor
Joe DeNucci. He also had the State Police Air Wing fly him to a Hyannis
soldier’s funeral and back to Boston for meetings last week.
“You should call that family from Hyannis that lost
their son in Iraq and see if they have a problem with me using the
helicopter,” Patrick snapped. Pressed on why he didn’t just drive to
Cape Cod, he responded: “I have a really crowded calendar and a very
ambitious agenda so I’m going to use every resource available.”
The governor’s office refused to provide the taxpayer cost of the trips,
referring questions to state police. A state police spokesman said the
department does not provide individual trip cost breakdowns.
In 2000, then-Lt. Gov. Jane Swift’s infamous chopper ride home to North
Adams for Thanksgiving was estimated at $1,000.
Governors’ use of state police helicopters has also sparked controversy
in other states.
In 2002, the New Jersey Democratic Party reimbursed that state for
several questionable chopper rides taken by then-Gov. Jim McGreevey. In
2005, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was criticized for regularly using
a state police chopper to get to meetings, bill signings and events.
While Patrick’s office said the state police’s five choppers are “there
for his use,” the department’s Web site makes no mention of aircraft
being used to shuttle public officials. Aircraft are routinely used for
searches, rescues, drug investigations, disasters and other public
safety missions.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney said he used the state police chopper only once,
for a public safety surveillance trip.
House minority leader Bradley H. Jones (R-N. Reading) said questions
over Patrick’s helicopter use are fair.
“One need not look back too far to see that Jane Swift was resoundingly
criticized for using it,” Jones said. “The question is is it necessary
for the circumstances. I don’t think it should be done as a normal part
of scheduling.”
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, February 14, 2006
Air Deval’s take on using (or abusing) job perks?
Just do it
By Howie Carr
Gov. Deval Patrick is accustomed to getting a free ride, and so he was
shocked yesterday when someone asked him about his latest free rides, in
a state police helicopter that once was used for public safety.
“My policy,” Air Deval sniffed, “is to use all the resources at my
disposal to be governor of the whole state.”
Translation: “The job don’t mean a thing if you can’t wear the bling.”
Then he said, “Next question,” which should have been this:
“But ... but ... what about the carbon footprint, governor?”
Deval, obviously, was taken aback by this lese majeste by a reporter.
He’s not used to being questioned, about anything. He’s the king, and he
was surrounded by his vassals, the Local Government Advisory Commission
-- municipal mendicants with their hands out for more local aid.
“I don’t care,” one shrew shrieked, “how often he uses the helicopter.”
How about you? Could you use a free ride this snowy day? Just cruise to
the grocery store high above all those peons slipping and sliding around
down on the snowy roads. It doesn’t get any better than this. Together
we can!
Yeah, you can get used to riding around in a chopper real quick. Just
ask Jane Swift. Of course, she paid a steep political price for her
Thanksgiving flight back to her double-wide in Berkshire County on the
state police helicopter. Why do you think Mitt Romney took it out only
once in four years?
But that was then and this is now, and now there’s a new governor, and
he’s apparently allowed to use the state police chopper whenever he damn
well pleases and nobody can say anything.
But of course there is a very big difference between Jane Swift and Air
Deval Patrick. She had an “R” next to her name, and he has a “D.” That
makes him one of the Beautiful People.
It’s getting clearer by the day that Air Deval likes the perks of his
job very much. His state police entourage is growing to Romney-esque
proportions.
Now we know why Deval doesn’t plan to do anything about police details.
Better to stick to the really important stuff, like refusing to sign a
Ronald Reagan proclamation, and trying to gut the CORI law for the
benefit of Benjamin LaGuer and all the Benjamin LaGuers to come.
Unlike the helicopter, his proposal to destroy the CORI law may not fly.
But it’s not like Deval isn’t doing anything. Air Deval has also
appointed a new insurance commissioner, a judge named Nonnie S. Burns.
Name doesn’t ring a bell? Well, if you were in the Wellesley College
Class of 1964, you might remember her as Hilda Margaret Steer, the name
by which she was formerly known, as she put it in her Governors Council
questionnaire 10 years ago.
I wrote a column about her and several other hacks being appointed to
the bench by Gov. Bill Weld, and how they were in reality nothing but
liberal lawyers who had tested positive for robe fever.
You’ll notice how The Judge Formerly Known as Hilda (or TJFKAH, for
short) was described as a Weld appointee, so we’re supposed to think
she’s not someone who gave money to such well-known pro-business
statesmen as Carol Moseley-Braun, Barney Frank, Marjorie
Margolies-Mezvinsky and Rosaria Salerno.
Then TJFKAH decided she wanted to retire to a judgeship, and guess what?
She suddenly started ponying up to Bill Weld’s Senate campaign. And now
she’s going to be Deval’s insurance commissioner, and what a coincidence
that she’s making a career move right after her judicial pension vested.
I wonder if Deval will give TJFKAH a ride on his helicopter.
Together we can pay for Air Deval to follow in the footsteps of Jane
Swift. The only difference is, for Deval it’s a free ride.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Gov’s copter rides don’t fly with Swift supporters
By Dave Wedge
Jane Swift backers are flying into a rage because the former acting
governor was put through the ringer over her use of a state police
helicopter, while Gov. Deval Patrick seems to be getting a free ride on
the same issue.
“Any objective look at the two situations would show that when she took
the helicopter there was a firestorm of criticism and that certainly
hasn’t happened here,” said Swift spokesman Jason Kauppi. “Maybe she
paved the way or maybe there’s another explanation.”
Swift was pilloried in the media, bashed by political opponents and
brought up on ethics charges when she hopped a chopper home for
Thanksgiving from Boston after an appearance at Logan International
Airport in 2000. She was later cleared of any ethics violations for the
helicopter ride.
Patrick has already used the chopper twice since taking office and has
vowed to continue using the taxpayer-funded aircraft at will. The
governor was shuttled from North Adams to Boston on Jan. 17 and flew
round-trip from Boston to Hyannis last week.
Aides say Patrick’s trips were different than Swift’s infamous ride, but
Republicans say his use -- and new helicopter travel policy -- should be
equally questioned.
“They certainly deserve the same level of scrutiny,” said state GOP
spokesman Brian Dodge. “These are public resources. His comments don’t
seem to take seriously enough the public concern about his use of these
resources.”
Bridgewater State College professor Dr. George Serra said both pols
“should be held to the same standard.”
“Whenever you’re using transportation that involves taxpayer dollars for
questionable reasons, you shouldn’t do it,” Serra said.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Patrick targets pension systems
State would take over underperforming funds
By Lisa Wangsness
Governor Deval Patrick is proposing a tough new mandate for the state's
cities and towns: If your pension system isn't performing, we're taking
the money and investing it ourselves.
As part of a municipal relief package Patrick is to unveil today,
approximately one-third of the state's 107 public pension funds would be
forced to turn over nearly $5 billion in assets for investment by the
state.
Those funds, which include the system overseen by the Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority, have earned lower returns than the state's pension
fund over the past five years and contain less than 80 percent of the
money necessary to cover their pension obligations. Many of the funds
invest pensions collectively for several cities and towns.
The proposal, which would encroach on an often jealously guarded
function of local government, must be approved by the Legislature, which
has cast doubt recently on another aspect of Patrick's municipal agenda,
his proposal to allow cities and towns to impose a small local meals tax
on restaurants. An effort to take control of the pension funds could
spark criticism from local governments, who have put their hope in
Patrick after years of depressed local aid and increasing property
taxes.
Until now, Patrick's effort to fulfill his campaign promises to cities
and towns has focused mainly on sending more money and granting
municipalities new taxing powers. But Patrick is now making it clear
that this may not be a painless process for local governments.
"The governor is talking about creating a new and modern relationship
with cities and towns, and that relationship is a two-way street," said
an administration source, who requested anonymity because the plan had
not been made public. "There are things the state can do to help cities
and towns, and there are things that cities and towns can do to help
themselves."
Patrick, who has been under pressure to deliver on his promises in the
light of a potential $1 billion budget deficit, is scheduled to announce
his Municipal Partnership Package today at Watertown Town Hall. About
two-dozen local leaders from across the state are scheduled to join him
for the announcement.
The administration source said the package will be a multifaceted set of
proposals to help cities and towns improve their financial and economic
picture. The governor has previously said he is considering ways to give
communities the authority to raise certain taxes, such as the meals tax,
to help them cover costs and reduce dependence on property taxes.
Yesterday, in another effort to help bolster relations with cities and
towns, Patrick appointed Robert G. Nunes, mayor of Taunton, to serve as
his director of municipal affairs.
The state Public Reserves Investment Trust, overseen by Treasurer
Timothy P. Cahill, manages $46.7 billion in retirement funds for
teachers, state employee retirement funds, and about 28 county,
municipal, and other retirement systems that have voluntarily chosen to
invest with the state.
Several policy analysts and politicians, including Patrick's Republican
opponent, Kerry Healey, have called for requiring all local pension
funds to be folded into the state system to save money on administrative
costs and to take advantage of the state's solid investment performance.
Healey said cities and towns could save as much as $200 million in
administrative costs immediately, though some doubted that estimate.
Questions have also been raised about the mishandling of public pension
funds. In Brockton, controversy arose over a police lieutenant's
$140,000 annual pension. And Middlesex County recently shifted nearly
$700 million in assets to the state after the inspector general's office
charged that one board member billed thousands of dollars in fraudulent
expenses and that the bidding process for the system's new headquarters
was rigged.
Cahill said that he supports Patrick's proposal. "In the long run, it
will save local communities significant money," he said.
He said the state pension fund was among the top 2 percent of pension
funds in the country over the last three years and that the size of the
state's fund allows it to get high returns for lower fees.
Salem State College economist Ken Ardon estimated in a study last year
that cities and towns could have earned an additional $1.6 billion over
the last decade if they joined the state system.
"It would make sense to consolidate them into the state fund. You'd have
lower costs and higher returns," Ardon told the Globe in December. "The
state constantly outperforms these smaller funds. They just can't
diversify to the extent the state can, and they aren't large enough to
get in some of the investment vehicles the state can."
In a study authored by Ardon last year, the Pioneer Institute, a
market-oriented think tank, found that in the prior 10 years, the total
return for the state's Pension Reserves Investment Trust fund was about
200 percent, while local funds had a median return of less than 170
percent. In 2006, the state trust posted returns of 16.7 percent,
outpacing most other public pension funds its size.
But some local officials raised concerns about the state's aggressive
investment tactics. They said communities differ on how much risk is
acceptable and should be allowed to invest as they see fit.
Patrick's proposal stops short of doing away with all local pension
funds. Only pension systems that are less than 80 percent funded and
that have underperformed the state fund by 2.25 percent over the last
five years would be required to transfer assets to the state fund,
administration sources said. The state fund's annualized returns were
7.04 percent between 2001 and 2005.
"This plan is calibrated toward performance," a Patrick administration
source said.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
