Editorial Staff

Study Finds Revived Merit Rating Board Taking Steps to Carry Out Statutorily Mandated Duties

/in , , , , , /by Editorial Staff
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

Board’s adoption of regular meeting schedule appropriate in light of enabling statute; study calls for review of other legislatively created boards or committees

BOSTON – The Merit Rating Board’s recent adoption of a regular meeting schedule and related resolutions is an important step in light of that Board’s 1976 governing statute, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

“After several years of inactivity, the Merit Rating Board appears to be embracing its statutory role, and this would be an opportune time to look for similar situations elsewhere in state government,” said David S. Clancy, author of “The Merit Rating Board: Review and Recommendations.”

The former director of the MRB was terminated in August, two months after a Massachusetts driver whose license should have been suspended caused a tragic collision that killed seven motorcyclists in New Hampshire.  The incident led to disclosure of widely reported administrative problems within the Registry of Motor Vehicles, among them that thousands of paper driving records from other states sat, unprocessed, with administrative personnel of the Merit Rating Board.

The accident also led to public awareness of the Merit Rating Board’s structure, particularly its governing panel.  Section 57A of Chapter 6C of Massachusetts General Laws specifies that the Merit Rating Board “consist[s] of” three public officials – the registrar of motor vehicles, the commissioner of insurance, and the Massachusetts attorney general or her designee.

That panel, which apparently had not met since 2015, has recently met twice and taken multiple other steps, including adoption of a regular schedule for frequent meetings, work toward finding a new permanent director, and a request for Inspector General review and assistance.

These corrective actions are consistent with the terms of the governing statute, initially enacted in 1976, which provides for appointment of a director, but also charges “the board” as a whole with formulating and administering “a plan for compiling, gathering, and disseminating” information about accidents, insurance claims and motor vehicle violations “as it deems necessary or appropriate to facilitate” the Massachusetts Safe Driver Insurance Plan.

The study makes several recommendations, including enhanced public disclosure of the structure and activities of the board, and a broader review of state government with an eye to whether the corrective steps being taken at the Merit Rating Board are needed at other state boards.

About the Study’s Author

David S. Clancy, a resident of Concord, Massachusetts, is a partner in the law firm Clancy & Shine LLC, which focuses on civil disputes. Mr. Clancy was previously partner at an international law firm, from which he retired after a 20-year career, also practicing civil litigation. Among other professional activities, Mr. Clancy served three terms on the Board of Editors of the Boston Bar Journal, and has published multiple articles in that and other legal publications.

About Pioneer

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Get Updates on Our Pioneer Public Initiatives!

Related Posts:

Pioneer Commends MA Governor-elect Healey’s Step Toward Greater Transparency

Pioneer Institute commends Governor-elect Maura Healey for choosing not to claim a public records exemption for the governor’s office. Governor-elect Healey also pledged to support legislation that would curb exemptions claimed by the legislative and judiciary branches of state government.

Study Finds Pension Obligation Bonds Could Worsen T Retirement Fund’s Financial Woes

A new study published by Pioneer Institute finds that issuing pension obligation bonds (POBs) to refinance $360 million of the MBTA Retirement Fund’s (MBTARF’s) $1.3 billion unfunded pension liability would only compound the T’s already serious financial risks.

Study Documents The Design Challenges, Contracting Issues, And Delays Facing New MBTA Fare Collection System

This new study unearths previously unseen communications between the MBTA and its contractors, showing that the MBTA’s efforts to modernize its fare collection system, including allowing payments with credit cards and bringing “tap and go” technology to Commuter Rail and ferry lines, was riddled with technological challenges and difficulties overseeing contractors as early as 2019, culminating in a 3-year delay to the project’s full implementation.

Study Finds Bus Rapid Transit Can Offer Cost-Effective Benefits

Bus rapid transit (BRT) incorporates unique features such as dedicated lanes to provide reliable and cost-effective service while reducing congestion and its detrimental environmental impacts, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Pioneer Institute Applauds Secretary Galvin’s Legislation to Subject Governor’s Office to Public Records Law, Calls for End to Legislative Exemption

Pioneer Institute applauds Secretary of State William Galvin for filing legislation that would subject the governor’s office to the Commonwealth’s public records law.  Since 1997, Massachusetts governors have broadly interpreted the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in Lambert v. Judicial Nominating Council to shield themselves from releasing certain documents.  Secretary Galvin’s legislation would prohibit future governors from doing so.

Study Raises Concern That Annual T Fare Evasion Costs Could Rise By More Than $30 Million Under AFC 2.0

According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the MBTA’s $935.4 million fare collection system (AFC 2.0) that is scheduled to be implemented in 2023 will reduce fare evasion by $35 million over a decade. But the T announced in 2021 that evasion could actually increase by up to $30 million under AFC 2.0, and now a Pioneer Institute study warns that insufficient fare enforcement could drive that figure even higher under the new system.