Top 10 Government Transparency Resolutions for 2018

Given the alleged actions of former State Senator Joyce, this is our number one hope for improved transparency in 2018. Massachusetts is among a minority of states that do not post Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) online.  Under the current process, all requests for SFIs go through the State Ethics Commission, which then provides the name of the requester to the public figure being scrutinized, which discourages public oversight.  The 2016 public records law failed to address this and only allowed SFI requests and the State Ethics Commission’s transmittal of them to the requester to be done through email, provided the requester provides identification and his or her affiliation – a major shortcoming.  SFIs should be treated the same as any other public records.

The State Ethics Commission should revamp the disclosures so they reflect modern day valuations since the form is woefully outdated. Here is an example from where the filer is supposed to disclose real estate values:

Assessed value of Real Estate:

·         $1,001 to 5,000

·         $5,001 to 10,000

·         $10,001 to 20,000

·         $20,001 to 40,000

·         $40,001 to 60,000

·         $60,001 to 100,000

·         $100,001 or more

Seriously?

It’s time government transparency is taken seriously on Beacon Hill. Improving the relevance of financial disclosures as well as our ability to access them would be a leap forward in ensuring that public officials act in our interest rather than their own.

Few have likely heard of Lambert v. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council, but over the last two decades this 1997 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling has been interpreted by each of our state’s governors to empower their respective offices to fulfill public records requests “at the office’s discretion.” As with the Legislature’s broad exemption, the 2016 public records law did not lift the governor’s blanket exemption but asked the special legislative commission to study the governor’s and judicial branch’s exemption and report back by December 30, 2017. The deadline has since been extended. In September 2016, Pioneer sent a letter to Governor Baker asking him to take bold action on this front. The Governor failed to respond.

Under Massachusetts law, the state Legislature is not considered a “public body” in the traditional sense, and therefore enjoys exemptions from open meeting and public records laws. Pioneer Institute believes this is unconstitutional. The state constitution says the Legislature should be accountable to citizens “at all times.”

The laws that apply to municipalities and the rest of state government should also apply to the Legislature.  The new law failed to address this exemption and only established a special legislative commission to look into the issue further.  We had looked forward to reading the commission’s report that was supposed to be submitted to the House and Senate Clerks’ Offices by December 30, 2017. Unfortunately, the deadline has quietly been extended to December 1, 2018.

We reaffirm our proposal to advance true legislative transparency by creating a state version of the Congressional Budget Office. This independent office would conduct cost-benefit analyses for bills that would either raise revenue or involve spending. Legislation with an estimated financial impact of more than $1 million would be subject to the analysis. In 2015, State Senator Jamie Eldridge introduced legislation that contained a feature that is similar to our proposal.

Establishing a Massachusetts office run by the Inspector General to independently assess bills with an expected budgetary impact in excess of $1 million would improve decision-making and accountability, and promote both efficiency and public trust. This office would be required to publish each analysis, including the assumptions behind it, on its website on a timely basis. To ensure independence, the Inspector General should be limited to a single six-year term without the possibility of reappointment.

The toll-paying public should know if their tolls are subsidizing other drivers who are using the Massachusetts Turnpike, the Tobin Bridge, and the Harbor tunnels without a transponder and not paying their bills under the Pay-by-Plate (PBP) system. MassDOT should create a real-time tool that shows toll billing captured through transponders, tolls to be billed through PBP, and tolls that are not billed because of PBP errors. The tool should also show PBP toll collections, the amount not yet collected, and the amount of write-offs based on state of vehicle registration.

As has been the practice for decades, the state Legislature hires its own firm to perform a partial review of its books and records, giving the public a very limited view of its operations. An audit of the Legislature should be conducted by the State Auditor and the results made public.

School districts should understand where they stand with respect to other districts in competition for limited funds to build or improve facilities. The School Building Authority (SBA) can make this easy by building a public transparency tool that tracks grant requests, reports the final scoring points earned on each proposal and the amount of money, if any, ultimately released to the district.

When Massachusetts launched its new records platform in 2016, the state improved government spending transparency. The lower maintenance costs and user-friendliness of the site made it a meaningful upgrade to the pre-existing Open Checkbook website. The site vastly improves the public’s ability to understand state spending by providing comprehensive details about the budget to anyone with an internet connection. Nationally, Massachusetts is highly ranked when it comes to spending transparency.

Here’s a way for us to lead the nation: give the public access to what vendors are charging us and exactly what we’re being charged for. Having PDFs of invoices and contracts included in the online database would provide clarity and reduce the need for public records requests.

One loophole, often abused because of its vagueness, is the “deliberative process” exemption, which prohibits citizens from gaining access to records related to a policy while it is being developed.  Why are citizens not entitled to know what their elected and appointed officials are thinking as they formulate policy?  We believe they are, and that anything less provides only the illusion of transparency. The new law did not eliminate this problematic exemption.

Last week, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in Massachusetts was $2.56. Included in that price are taxes that go to the state and the federal governments amounting to approximately $.45, or almost 18 percent of the total cost. Citizens are often unaware of how much gas tax they are paying. Requiring gas stations to post stickers disclosing federal and state taxes would improve transparency.