All told, 2009 was a difficult year on a personal level for many Massachusetts residents, and it was difficult for our state as a whole.
Over the past year, the economy continued a rapid descent and many Massachusetts residents found themselves struggling financially.
Jobs were lost as our state’s unemployment level reached its highest level since the 1970’s. And residents had to grapple with rising costs, including a higher sales tax and the threat of toll increases.
Those new costs were brought on amidst news that our state faced a multi-billion dollar budget deficit and that tax revenues were in steep decline. The legislature purported to try to address the situation with responsible budgeting and reforms in areas like transportation. However, budget plans fell short of finding the real savings we need to make our budget responsible. Too often, programs like local aid and services for the vulnerable fell victim to cuts while wasteful spending and duplication were permitted to remain. And bills passed in the name of reforming things like transportation, ethics and our state retirement system fell short of the full-blown change we need to make state government more efficient and accountable to the taxpayers.
In fact, getting anything done on Beacon Hill was difficult amidst news of ethical problems for politicians, and with too many legislators concerned about things like how they could accept a pay raise and fight back a proposal for term limits instead of thinking about problems facing everyday people across their districts.
As we look ahead to 2010, here’s hoping for a better, brighter year. A recent revenue hearing at the State House pointed to the possibility of economic growth over the next year, with hope that the job market and tax revenues could pick up by year’s end. That would be welcome news to everyone.
Legislatively, formal sessions will begin within a few short days. At the top of the list of bills to be addressed is an education reform bill that will let our state tap into federal Race to the Top funds, while at the same time helping some of our chronically-underperforming school districts succeed. There’s already talk that a debate on expanded gaming could follow. And in late January, Governor Patrick will release his budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011, which will start many months of budget deliberations for the coming year. I’m hoping there will also be a chance to address several bills I filed to establish better monitoring for sex offenders, dangerousness hearings for child rapists, and provisions for municipal relief, among others.
Let’s hope that the next twelve months will be a new beginning for our state and that we will emerge from 2009 stronger, more hopeful, and ready to prosper once again. I wish you and your family a safe, happy and successful New Year.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/29/2009
For a change, there is actually good news to report from Beacon Hill regarding local aid.
Governor Patrick has reversed course and restored plans to cut $18 million in regional school transportation reimbursement as a way to balance the budget.
According to the Worcester Telegram, the reversal is the result of evidence that the decrease in funding would have an adverse impact on student learning in districts that would be unable to make mid-year adjustments to account for the cuts.
I give credit to the Patrick administration for restoring these funds, which are especially important to many school districts across the state.
But, of course, not every town is served by a regional school, so many communities will have to wait to see additional relief from the state.
With that in mind, I hope that the Patrick administration will be equally cognizant of the importance of local aid (especially Chapter 70 aid) when the governor releases his FY2011 budget plan next month. And I still hope that my colleagues in the legislature will take up proposals for municipal cost savings and reform when formal sessions resume in January. I’ve filed several proposals for municipal relief, and there are other bills that address the issue as well. They all deserve prompt consideration to save cities and towns money.
Do you have any ideas for municipal relief? I’d like to know what they are. Please post a comment below to get a discussion started.
Governor Patrick has reversed course and restored plans to cut $18 million in regional school transportation reimbursement as a way to balance the budget.
According to the Worcester Telegram, the reversal is the result of evidence that the decrease in funding would have an adverse impact on student learning in districts that would be unable to make mid-year adjustments to account for the cuts.
I give credit to the Patrick administration for restoring these funds, which are especially important to many school districts across the state.
But, of course, not every town is served by a regional school, so many communities will have to wait to see additional relief from the state.
With that in mind, I hope that the Patrick administration will be equally cognizant of the importance of local aid (especially Chapter 70 aid) when the governor releases his FY2011 budget plan next month. And I still hope that my colleagues in the legislature will take up proposals for municipal cost savings and reform when formal sessions resume in January. I’ve filed several proposals for municipal relief, and there are other bills that address the issue as well. They all deserve prompt consideration to save cities and towns money.
Do you have any ideas for municipal relief? I’d like to know what they are. Please post a comment below to get a discussion started.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/28/2009
The week between Christmas and New Year’s is usually fairly quiet on Beacon Hill.
But this year, this typical vacation week will be punctuated with lots of work to advance a bill that represents our state’s first major attempt at education reform in two decades.
The flurry of activity surrounding this bill is appropriate, albeit overdue. There is a lot at stake with this legislation, particularly with regard to charter schools in Massachusetts.
This past summer, President Obama announced a $4.35 billion competitive grant program for states to improve under-performing schools. Applications for state grants to access these so-called “Race to the Top” funds are due by January 19, 2010. According to Governor Patrick, Massachusetts could be eligible to receive up to $250 million in grants under the program, but access to the funds would require our state to lift its cap on new charter school creation over the next few weeks, before grant applications are submitted.
The education reform bill would remove this cap. It also would change the funding formula that is used to reimburse cities and towns for the money they pay to fund charter schools based on the number of students they send there. Right now, cities and towns receive reimbursement for students over three years on a declining balance basis, with 100 percent reimbursement in the first year, 60 percent in the second year and 40 percent in the third year (for 200 percent total). A new funding proposal would send reimbursement directly to charter schools, and it would increase reimbursement to 225 percent total. However, it would stretch the reimbursement term out to six years, with 100 percent reimbursement in the first year and only 25 percent in following years. Many school districts are concerned that this funding formula could impact their local budgets substantially.
As of now, the education reform bill is scheduled to be debated and passed by the House on January 6, 2010, right after the beginning of formal sessions for the new year. I support lifting the cap on charter schools, and I hope the Legislature passes this bill quickly. However, I hope the funding formula will be fixed so that we can be sure the effects of education reform will be fair to suburban school districts, and so that their budgets will not suffer even greater strain as a result of our reform efforts. Now is the time for suburban districts to level the playing field.
What do you think about this education reform plan? Is it a good idea, or is it too much too soon? Please post a comment below.
But this year, this typical vacation week will be punctuated with lots of work to advance a bill that represents our state’s first major attempt at education reform in two decades.
The flurry of activity surrounding this bill is appropriate, albeit overdue. There is a lot at stake with this legislation, particularly with regard to charter schools in Massachusetts.
This past summer, President Obama announced a $4.35 billion competitive grant program for states to improve under-performing schools. Applications for state grants to access these so-called “Race to the Top” funds are due by January 19, 2010. According to Governor Patrick, Massachusetts could be eligible to receive up to $250 million in grants under the program, but access to the funds would require our state to lift its cap on new charter school creation over the next few weeks, before grant applications are submitted.
The education reform bill would remove this cap. It also would change the funding formula that is used to reimburse cities and towns for the money they pay to fund charter schools based on the number of students they send there. Right now, cities and towns receive reimbursement for students over three years on a declining balance basis, with 100 percent reimbursement in the first year, 60 percent in the second year and 40 percent in the third year (for 200 percent total). A new funding proposal would send reimbursement directly to charter schools, and it would increase reimbursement to 225 percent total. However, it would stretch the reimbursement term out to six years, with 100 percent reimbursement in the first year and only 25 percent in following years. Many school districts are concerned that this funding formula could impact their local budgets substantially.
As of now, the education reform bill is scheduled to be debated and passed by the House on January 6, 2010, right after the beginning of formal sessions for the new year. I support lifting the cap on charter schools, and I hope the Legislature passes this bill quickly. However, I hope the funding formula will be fixed so that we can be sure the effects of education reform will be fair to suburban school districts, and so that their budgets will not suffer even greater strain as a result of our reform efforts. Now is the time for suburban districts to level the playing field.
What do you think about this education reform plan? Is it a good idea, or is it too much too soon? Please post a comment below.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Happy Holidays
This holiday season, may we celebrate the hopes, dreams and values that unite us all: love for our family and friends, a wish for peace on earth, and a better, brighter future for ourselves and our children.
On behalf of my husband and our children, I wish you and your family a joyous holiday season.
On behalf of my husband and our children, I wish you and your family a joyous holiday season.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/22/2009
There’s a story in the Worcester Business Journal today about a very important issue facing the state’s business community.
The issue relates to our state’s “fair share” health insurance regulations, and it’s posing a significant threat to many small businesses across our state.
Massachusetts businesses are required to offer health insurance to their employees, and rightfully so. Until several years ago, state regulations required businesses to choose to meet one of two thresholds for providing that insurance. In order to comply, businesses could choose to fund at least 33 percent of the cost of health care benefits, or they could offer insurance to at least 25 percent of their employees.
But a couple of years ago, our state changed the rules as part of the sweeping health care reform bill that we passed. Under new state “fair share” health insurance regulations, businesses must comply with both the 33 percent funding and the 25 percent enrollment requirements, or they face a penalty of $295 per employee per year.
Many business owners are having difficulty meeting both of these requirements, particularly the 25 percent enrollment requirement. One reason is that many businesses have employees who receive health insurance from other sources, such as through a spouse’s employer. Those employees are counted as part of the pool of workers used to calculate the 25 percent enrollment guideline. So, it’s theoretically possible that a business might be taxed $295 per employee for failing to provide health insurance to more than a quarter of its workers, even though it actually provides insurance benefits in good faith to all of the workers who request it.
This situation isn’t fair, and it’s the sort of bad business policy that’s making our state uncompetitive and forcing jobs elsewhere. We can’t expect companies to open their doors in Massachusetts so long as we have regulations like this one on the books that make it cost prohibitive to do business here. Job growth here in Massachusetts depends on us having sound business policies in place first.
I support our state’s interest in making sure that businesses offer health insurance to their employees sufficiently, but I believe the fair share regulations need to be amended in several ways, starting with an amendment to exclude from the 25 percent enrollment calculation any workers who receive health insurance from other sources.
What do you think? Do you support the “fair share” regulations as they are now? Or, do you agree that they should be amended to make them more equitable? Please post your comments below to let me know what you think.
The issue relates to our state’s “fair share” health insurance regulations, and it’s posing a significant threat to many small businesses across our state.
Massachusetts businesses are required to offer health insurance to their employees, and rightfully so. Until several years ago, state regulations required businesses to choose to meet one of two thresholds for providing that insurance. In order to comply, businesses could choose to fund at least 33 percent of the cost of health care benefits, or they could offer insurance to at least 25 percent of their employees.
But a couple of years ago, our state changed the rules as part of the sweeping health care reform bill that we passed. Under new state “fair share” health insurance regulations, businesses must comply with both the 33 percent funding and the 25 percent enrollment requirements, or they face a penalty of $295 per employee per year.
Many business owners are having difficulty meeting both of these requirements, particularly the 25 percent enrollment requirement. One reason is that many businesses have employees who receive health insurance from other sources, such as through a spouse’s employer. Those employees are counted as part of the pool of workers used to calculate the 25 percent enrollment guideline. So, it’s theoretically possible that a business might be taxed $295 per employee for failing to provide health insurance to more than a quarter of its workers, even though it actually provides insurance benefits in good faith to all of the workers who request it.
This situation isn’t fair, and it’s the sort of bad business policy that’s making our state uncompetitive and forcing jobs elsewhere. We can’t expect companies to open their doors in Massachusetts so long as we have regulations like this one on the books that make it cost prohibitive to do business here. Job growth here in Massachusetts depends on us having sound business policies in place first.
I support our state’s interest in making sure that businesses offer health insurance to their employees sufficiently, but I believe the fair share regulations need to be amended in several ways, starting with an amendment to exclude from the 25 percent enrollment calculation any workers who receive health insurance from other sources.
What do you think? Do you support the “fair share” regulations as they are now? Or, do you agree that they should be amended to make them more equitable? Please post your comments below to let me know what you think.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/21/2009
Have you heard that plans are moving ahead for the state to take over the Southern New England School of Law and for the UMass-Dartmouth campus to assume its operations?
It’s true – and this “gift” could end up costing taxpayers a lot of money.
Here’s the problem.
It makes reasonable sense for our state to try to add to its higher education portfolio by creating a public law school, but Southern New England School of Law is not an accredited law school. Accreditation is necessary to make a law school work long-term, and it requires a large investment of resources.
Southern New England School of Law doesn’t have the money for that investment, and that’s the whole reason they are interested in being taken over by the state. Unfortunately, our state doesn’t have the money, either. But if we make the law school part of the UMass system, and if tuition doesn’t increase to the point that UMass could fund improvements on its own, taxpayers will be required to fund whatever money is needed for accreditation later on.
State Senator Stan Rosenberg has introduced legislation to block a bailout of the law school by taxpayers. As pointed out in an editorial in today’s Boston Herald, his idea is a good one. We need to be fiscally responsible, even when it comes to accepting “gifts” of private law schools. While creating a public law school might have its merits, it’s simply not a priority for our state right now, and it’s not something to which we should commit taxpayer money.
What do you think? Do you think it’s worth it for our state to create a public law school despite the cost? Or are you concerned that bills will add up later on? I’d like to know what you think. Please post a comment below.
It’s true – and this “gift” could end up costing taxpayers a lot of money.
Here’s the problem.
It makes reasonable sense for our state to try to add to its higher education portfolio by creating a public law school, but Southern New England School of Law is not an accredited law school. Accreditation is necessary to make a law school work long-term, and it requires a large investment of resources.
Southern New England School of Law doesn’t have the money for that investment, and that’s the whole reason they are interested in being taken over by the state. Unfortunately, our state doesn’t have the money, either. But if we make the law school part of the UMass system, and if tuition doesn’t increase to the point that UMass could fund improvements on its own, taxpayers will be required to fund whatever money is needed for accreditation later on.
State Senator Stan Rosenberg has introduced legislation to block a bailout of the law school by taxpayers. As pointed out in an editorial in today’s Boston Herald, his idea is a good one. We need to be fiscally responsible, even when it comes to accepting “gifts” of private law schools. While creating a public law school might have its merits, it’s simply not a priority for our state right now, and it’s not something to which we should commit taxpayer money.
What do you think? Do you think it’s worth it for our state to create a public law school despite the cost? Or are you concerned that bills will add up later on? I’d like to know what you think. Please post a comment below.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/18/09
On Wednesday, I filed legislation to require that criminals accused of sex offenses involving a child be subject to a dangerousness hearing before being released on bail.
I’d like to update you on the efforts to advance this legislation, and let you know more about what you can do to help if you support this idea.
But first, I think it’s worth noting that there’s a follow-up story in the Boston Herald today about John H. Gardner, the alleged child rapist from Kingston whose cases prompted me to file this bill. It now appears that Gardner was set free on $10,000 cash bail even though he had a had a two-page record dating back to 2000 (when he was only 17 years old) at the time of his arraignment. The record allegedly included nine cases, with three defaults for failure to appear in court.
This information makes it even more disturbing that Gardner was released on bail without consideration of his dangerousness, and it shows why passing the bill I filed is even more important.
Since I submitted the bill to the House Clerk, I’ve been working hard to spread the word and to encourage people to support it. So far, nine of my House and Senate colleagues have signed on to cosponsor the bill and others have expressed interest. I’ve also received many messages of support from everyday citizens who are alarmed by the case in Kingston and who join me in wanting to see our laws strengthened to deal with sex offenders.
Before the bill can be voted on by the House and Senate, the Rules Committee needs to refer it to another legislative committee for a public hearing and report. The more support the bill receives, the greater the chances are that it will advance through the process.
If you support the bill, I encourage you to call House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office and ask that the bill be referred to a committee for a hearing. His number is (617) 722-2500.
I’d also like to hear from you if you support this bill. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.
I’d like to update you on the efforts to advance this legislation, and let you know more about what you can do to help if you support this idea.
But first, I think it’s worth noting that there’s a follow-up story in the Boston Herald today about John H. Gardner, the alleged child rapist from Kingston whose cases prompted me to file this bill. It now appears that Gardner was set free on $10,000 cash bail even though he had a had a two-page record dating back to 2000 (when he was only 17 years old) at the time of his arraignment. The record allegedly included nine cases, with three defaults for failure to appear in court.
This information makes it even more disturbing that Gardner was released on bail without consideration of his dangerousness, and it shows why passing the bill I filed is even more important.
Since I submitted the bill to the House Clerk, I’ve been working hard to spread the word and to encourage people to support it. So far, nine of my House and Senate colleagues have signed on to cosponsor the bill and others have expressed interest. I’ve also received many messages of support from everyday citizens who are alarmed by the case in Kingston and who join me in wanting to see our laws strengthened to deal with sex offenders.
Before the bill can be voted on by the House and Senate, the Rules Committee needs to refer it to another legislative committee for a public hearing and report. The more support the bill receives, the greater the chances are that it will advance through the process.
If you support the bill, I encourage you to call House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office and ask that the bill be referred to a committee for a hearing. His number is (617) 722-2500.
I’d also like to hear from you if you support this bill. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Call to Action
I am writing to ask for your assistance in pressing for passage of legislation to crack down on sex offenders here in Massachusetts.
This issue relates back to the recent tragic case involving Joseph H. Gardner of Kingston, which I was shocked and disgusted to learn about earlier this week.
Gardner is alleged to have raped a 3-year-old girl while her mother was asleep in the same house. The disgusting nature of this crime is made even more horrific by the fact that the rape allegedly occurred while Gardner was free on bail and awaiting trial for the alleged rape of a 5-year-old child this past summer. Gardner was set free in October after posting just $10,000 bail on the first case, and there was no dangerousness hearing held prior to his release.
Under current law, prosecutors have the ability to request a dangerousness hearing prior to bail being set in certain serious criminal cases. However, there is no guarantee that such a hearing will be requested or held.
The legislation I filed changes this situation by requiring the court to hold a dangerousness hearing in any case where there is an allegation of a sex offense involving a child, including child rape.
I believe we need to add an extra layer of protection and accountability in cases where there is an alleged sex crime against a child. This is a responsible measure to make sure that dangerous sex offenders don’t fall through the cracks and get set free while they await trial, as apparently happened in the Kingston case. At the same time, the bill respects judicial discretion in such cases.
The text of the legislation follows below. The bill is awaiting the assignment of a docket number by the House Clerk. I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about the bill and why it's necessary. You can also read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
Unfortunately, many bills like this end up getting referred to the House Rules Committee and they sit there without further action being taken. I believe we need there to be action taken on this bill soon. If you support passage of this bill, I urge you to contact House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office at (617) 722-2500 to ask him to have the bill released from the Rules Committee and scheduled for a public hearing as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karyn
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-
When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
This issue relates back to the recent tragic case involving Joseph H. Gardner of Kingston, which I was shocked and disgusted to learn about earlier this week.
Gardner is alleged to have raped a 3-year-old girl while her mother was asleep in the same house. The disgusting nature of this crime is made even more horrific by the fact that the rape allegedly occurred while Gardner was free on bail and awaiting trial for the alleged rape of a 5-year-old child this past summer. Gardner was set free in October after posting just $10,000 bail on the first case, and there was no dangerousness hearing held prior to his release.
Under current law, prosecutors have the ability to request a dangerousness hearing prior to bail being set in certain serious criminal cases. However, there is no guarantee that such a hearing will be requested or held.
The legislation I filed changes this situation by requiring the court to hold a dangerousness hearing in any case where there is an allegation of a sex offense involving a child, including child rape.
I believe we need to add an extra layer of protection and accountability in cases where there is an alleged sex crime against a child. This is a responsible measure to make sure that dangerous sex offenders don’t fall through the cracks and get set free while they await trial, as apparently happened in the Kingston case. At the same time, the bill respects judicial discretion in such cases.
The text of the legislation follows below. The bill is awaiting the assignment of a docket number by the House Clerk. I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about the bill and why it's necessary. You can also read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
Unfortunately, many bills like this end up getting referred to the House Rules Committee and they sit there without further action being taken. I believe we need there to be action taken on this bill soon. If you support passage of this bill, I urge you to contact House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office at (617) 722-2500 to ask him to have the bill released from the Rules Committee and scheduled for a public hearing as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karyn
--------------------
Text of the Bill
--------------------
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-
When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
Thought of the Day - 12/16/2009
I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about a bill I'm filing to require a dangerousness hearing before courts grant bail for those accused of a sex offense involving a child.
You can read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
I will be filing this bill later today. Here is the text:
You can read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
I will be filing this bill later today. Here is the text:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-
When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/15/2009
Do you think that someone who is accused of breaking into a home through a bathroom window in the middle of the night and raping a 6-year-old child should be set free on just $10,000 cash bail?
I think that’s plainly wrong, and as a story in today’s Boston Globe points out, there’s a very good reason why.
The facts above were precisely the allegations leveled against a criminal defendant in Kingston earlier this summer. The defendant eventually was released from custody on $10,000 bail, free to roam the streets unmonitored pending trial. What makes this case even more tragic is that the same defendant started dating another woman in the interim period and, this past Friday, allegedly raped her 3-year-old daughter while the woman was sleeping.
I find these allegations disgusting, and I think we have a responsibility to make sure cases like this one don’t happen again in the future.
In my opinion, dangerous sex offenders should not be permitted to roam around and prey on innocent victims. I’ve fought tirelessly throughout my time in the House of Representatives to push for tougher sentencing of sexual predators, and for stronger monitoring of convicted sex offenders who are released on probation and parole.
My view doesn’t change based on where a criminal defendant is at in the court system. I understand the constitutional rights of the accused. But if there are credible allegations that someone has committed a rape and that they present a danger to society, I believe that person has no business being set free on bail to prowl the streets pending trial.
That’s why I am filing legislation to require that judges hold a dangerousness hearing prior to setting bail for any defendant charged with a serious sexual offense. That hearing will require the judge to evaluate whether there is enough credible evidence to conclude that the defendant poses a risk to society and a likelihood of reoffense, not just whether the defendant poses a risk of flight pending trial.
By their very nature, sex offenders pose a serious danger to public safety whenever they’re free to roam the streets. The only responsible place for them is behind bars. And it’s time for our state to get more serious about putting them there.
Do you agree? Please let me know by posting a comment below.
I think that’s plainly wrong, and as a story in today’s Boston Globe points out, there’s a very good reason why.
The facts above were precisely the allegations leveled against a criminal defendant in Kingston earlier this summer. The defendant eventually was released from custody on $10,000 bail, free to roam the streets unmonitored pending trial. What makes this case even more tragic is that the same defendant started dating another woman in the interim period and, this past Friday, allegedly raped her 3-year-old daughter while the woman was sleeping.
I find these allegations disgusting, and I think we have a responsibility to make sure cases like this one don’t happen again in the future.
In my opinion, dangerous sex offenders should not be permitted to roam around and prey on innocent victims. I’ve fought tirelessly throughout my time in the House of Representatives to push for tougher sentencing of sexual predators, and for stronger monitoring of convicted sex offenders who are released on probation and parole.
My view doesn’t change based on where a criminal defendant is at in the court system. I understand the constitutional rights of the accused. But if there are credible allegations that someone has committed a rape and that they present a danger to society, I believe that person has no business being set free on bail to prowl the streets pending trial.
That’s why I am filing legislation to require that judges hold a dangerousness hearing prior to setting bail for any defendant charged with a serious sexual offense. That hearing will require the judge to evaluate whether there is enough credible evidence to conclude that the defendant poses a risk to society and a likelihood of reoffense, not just whether the defendant poses a risk of flight pending trial.
By their very nature, sex offenders pose a serious danger to public safety whenever they’re free to roam the streets. The only responsible place for them is behind bars. And it’s time for our state to get more serious about putting them there.
Do you agree? Please let me know by posting a comment below.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/14/2009
This week is shaping up to be the start of a lengthy discussion about revenue and spending on Beacon Hill. And if you ask me, it’s a discussion that’s long overdue.
It all comes down to one big question: how much money do we realistically expect our state to collect in the coming months, and how much of that money do we feel comfortable spending?
Lawmakers will hold a hearing on Wednesday to start trying to forecast revenue collections for next fiscal year, in preparation for crafting a responsible budget in spring. But at the same time, as this editorial in today’s Boston Herald points out, Beacon Hill leaders are still working behind closed doors to determine how much money the state is lacking in the current fiscal and what to do about the shortfall.
According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the state still faces a $300 million to $500 million shortfall in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. The Patrick administration seems not to be fully prepared to address this shortfall by making further budget cuts. If anything, there seems to be a desire on Patrick’s part to fill the gap by spending money from our state’s Rainy Day Fund or from one-time federal payments. These monies might get us through our day-to-day problems, but these one-time fixes are unsustainable and they actually tend to get us into even deeper trouble down the road.
And according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, that’s exactly where we are heading. The group predicts a budget chasm of $3 billion next fiscal year, and addressing that structural deficit will require even deeper budget cuts than we’ve already seen.
These discussions are both necessary and appropriate for us to be able to balance our budget this year and beyond, and to make responsible decisions about spending money. I hope that Beacon Hill leaders will follow the advice of experts they hear from this week and start making the tough decisions that are required of us to address revenue shortfalls. The most important thing our state can do to get us through this current fiscal crisis is to bring our spending to within the limits of available revenues, and to prioritize those cuts so that administrative expenses and frivolous programs are eliminated while essential services are preserved.
What do you think? I’d like to hear from you. Please post a comment below.
It all comes down to one big question: how much money do we realistically expect our state to collect in the coming months, and how much of that money do we feel comfortable spending?
Lawmakers will hold a hearing on Wednesday to start trying to forecast revenue collections for next fiscal year, in preparation for crafting a responsible budget in spring. But at the same time, as this editorial in today’s Boston Herald points out, Beacon Hill leaders are still working behind closed doors to determine how much money the state is lacking in the current fiscal and what to do about the shortfall.
According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the state still faces a $300 million to $500 million shortfall in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. The Patrick administration seems not to be fully prepared to address this shortfall by making further budget cuts. If anything, there seems to be a desire on Patrick’s part to fill the gap by spending money from our state’s Rainy Day Fund or from one-time federal payments. These monies might get us through our day-to-day problems, but these one-time fixes are unsustainable and they actually tend to get us into even deeper trouble down the road.
And according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, that’s exactly where we are heading. The group predicts a budget chasm of $3 billion next fiscal year, and addressing that structural deficit will require even deeper budget cuts than we’ve already seen.
These discussions are both necessary and appropriate for us to be able to balance our budget this year and beyond, and to make responsible decisions about spending money. I hope that Beacon Hill leaders will follow the advice of experts they hear from this week and start making the tough decisions that are required of us to address revenue shortfalls. The most important thing our state can do to get us through this current fiscal crisis is to bring our spending to within the limits of available revenues, and to prioritize those cuts so that administrative expenses and frivolous programs are eliminated while essential services are preserved.
What do you think? I’d like to hear from you. Please post a comment below.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/11/2009
Yesterday was an historic day in Massachusetts, as Governor Patrick promoted Lt. Col. Marian J. McGovern to serve as superintendent of the state police.
I am proud to know Marian McGovern as someone who is universally respected by her colleagues in law enforcement.
She worked hard and earned her way to the top while at the same time never forgetting her roots.
I recently saw Marian and expressed my hope for this opportunity. I know she will proudly lead our state police and will help to champion issues that will make our communities, families and children safe. Leading the fight to implement an amber alert system in our state is just one example of Marian’s follow through and determination.
Marian McGovern is a woman to be celebrated and supported in her efforts, and I wish her the best of luck as superintendent of the state police.
I am proud to know Marian McGovern as someone who is universally respected by her colleagues in law enforcement.
She worked hard and earned her way to the top while at the same time never forgetting her roots.
I recently saw Marian and expressed my hope for this opportunity. I know she will proudly lead our state police and will help to champion issues that will make our communities, families and children safe. Leading the fight to implement an amber alert system in our state is just one example of Marian’s follow through and determination.
Marian McGovern is a woman to be celebrated and supported in her efforts, and I wish her the best of luck as superintendent of the state police.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/10/2009
In a step to address our fiscal crisis – a step that’s long overdue – unpaid work furloughs are coming to the Legislature this month.
And I am pleased to say that I am part of the 90 percent of state representatives who are voluntarily participating in this five-day program.
Of course, it’s unfortunate to have to tell staffers that they will be expected to forfeit several days of salary, especially around the holidays. Furloughs are not something for our state to necessarily celebrate or be proud of.
But as experience in the private sector shows us, furloughs are a responsible way to save money on administrative costs without forcing layoffs or jeopardizing quality of service. I have called for furloughs of state workers for several months now as a way to save our state money, and I support the plan for legislative furloughs. Legislative leaders recently announced the layoff of 28 staff members to save money. Without furloughs, layoffs likely would be much more prevalent.
I also believe that while furloughs are not being required of legislators (whose pay can’t be altered under the Constitution), taking a voluntary furlough is the right thing to do. That’s why I am opting to participate in the program and to voluntarily work without pay for five days this month. It’s the same attitude I had earlier this year when I refused to accept a $3,200 pay raise being offered to legislators. Solving our state’s fiscal problems takes leadership, and leading by example is an important part of that process.
We need to look at more alternatives like furloughs to address budget shortfalls in state government. It’s important to get our administrative expenses under control before we talk about cutting back programs and services that people depend on. Furloughs are one way to do that, and I support them.
What do you think? Please post a comment below.
And I am pleased to say that I am part of the 90 percent of state representatives who are voluntarily participating in this five-day program.
Of course, it’s unfortunate to have to tell staffers that they will be expected to forfeit several days of salary, especially around the holidays. Furloughs are not something for our state to necessarily celebrate or be proud of.
But as experience in the private sector shows us, furloughs are a responsible way to save money on administrative costs without forcing layoffs or jeopardizing quality of service. I have called for furloughs of state workers for several months now as a way to save our state money, and I support the plan for legislative furloughs. Legislative leaders recently announced the layoff of 28 staff members to save money. Without furloughs, layoffs likely would be much more prevalent.
I also believe that while furloughs are not being required of legislators (whose pay can’t be altered under the Constitution), taking a voluntary furlough is the right thing to do. That’s why I am opting to participate in the program and to voluntarily work without pay for five days this month. It’s the same attitude I had earlier this year when I refused to accept a $3,200 pay raise being offered to legislators. Solving our state’s fiscal problems takes leadership, and leading by example is an important part of that process.
We need to look at more alternatives like furloughs to address budget shortfalls in state government. It’s important to get our administrative expenses under control before we talk about cutting back programs and services that people depend on. Furloughs are one way to do that, and I support them.
What do you think? Please post a comment below.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/ 09/2009
Yesterday, Massachusetts voters selected Martha Coakley and Scott Brown to represent the Democratic and Republican Parties in the January 19 special election to fill Senator Kennedy’s vacant seat in the United States Senate.
This race is incredibly significant for our state.
The victor will spend the next two years filling out Senator Kennedy’s unexpired term and working on some of the most important issues facing our nation – and in the process, he or she also will be positioned to run for a full term as an incumbent in 2012.
That’s why I am disappointed that more voters did not seize the opportunity to vote in yesterday’s primary. Early numbers suggest that only about 600,000 voters in the state, or about 15 percent of the total electorate, bothered to show up at the polls.
I think there are several factors behind this. First, it’s always difficult to encourage people to vote in special elections, especially in ones like this that happen around the holidays. Second, this particular campaign was under a compressed time schedule, and its outcome seemed predictable to many. Third, I think many people found there to be little policy difference between candidates on the Democratic side, and therefore little compelling reason to go to the polls to support one over the other.
January 19 is the next opportunity for people to voice their opinion on not just the two competing candidates but also the direction in which our country is heading. People who think the country is heading in the right direction and who want a continuation of the same will probably vote for Coakley, while those who are frustrated by the status quo and who are seeking a change in direction will vote for Brown.
But whatever their preference, I hope that more people will get out and vote on January 19.
Did you vote yesterday? If so, what interested you in the race? If not, why not? Please post your thoughts below and let’s get a discussion started.
This race is incredibly significant for our state.
The victor will spend the next two years filling out Senator Kennedy’s unexpired term and working on some of the most important issues facing our nation – and in the process, he or she also will be positioned to run for a full term as an incumbent in 2012.
That’s why I am disappointed that more voters did not seize the opportunity to vote in yesterday’s primary. Early numbers suggest that only about 600,000 voters in the state, or about 15 percent of the total electorate, bothered to show up at the polls.
I think there are several factors behind this. First, it’s always difficult to encourage people to vote in special elections, especially in ones like this that happen around the holidays. Second, this particular campaign was under a compressed time schedule, and its outcome seemed predictable to many. Third, I think many people found there to be little policy difference between candidates on the Democratic side, and therefore little compelling reason to go to the polls to support one over the other.
January 19 is the next opportunity for people to voice their opinion on not just the two competing candidates but also the direction in which our country is heading. People who think the country is heading in the right direction and who want a continuation of the same will probably vote for Coakley, while those who are frustrated by the status quo and who are seeking a change in direction will vote for Brown.
But whatever their preference, I hope that more people will get out and vote on January 19.
Did you vote yesterday? If so, what interested you in the race? If not, why not? Please post your thoughts below and let’s get a discussion started.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/08/2009
It might not feel like it if you look at the snow blanketing most of Massachusetts today, but today is Election Day here in the Bay State.
Today is the date voters are choosing primary candidates for the January 19 special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate.
The choice of candidates today is especially important given what’s at stake. Massachusetts needs quality representation in the Senate to ensure we share an appropriate stake in policy decisions being made at the federal level. And the choice voters make could have consequences for years to come. Consider this: the person voters choose on January 19 will be only the 27th person ever to occupy the seat Senator Kennedy held for 47 years.
Whatever your party affiliation and your preference, I encourage you to take just a few minutes to exercise the greatest privilege our democracy has to offer by voting today.
Today is the date voters are choosing primary candidates for the January 19 special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate.
The choice of candidates today is especially important given what’s at stake. Massachusetts needs quality representation in the Senate to ensure we share an appropriate stake in policy decisions being made at the federal level. And the choice voters make could have consequences for years to come. Consider this: the person voters choose on January 19 will be only the 27th person ever to occupy the seat Senator Kennedy held for 47 years.
Whatever your party affiliation and your preference, I encourage you to take just a few minutes to exercise the greatest privilege our democracy has to offer by voting today.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/07/09
What would you say to a proposal to increase our state’s 23.5 cent gas tax by between 10 and 50 cents a gallon to cover transportation expenses?
I say: no way.
But that’s exactly the question that will be before lawmakers today as a legislative committee hears testimony on several bills that seek to raise the gas tax.
Raising the gas tax would have harmful effects on our economy. Massachusetts families can’t afford to pay additional money to commute to work and school each day, let alone take their cars on trips or staycations. Businesses here also rely heavily on state roads to transport their goods and services, and an increased gas tax would have a serious impact on their bottom line.
If nothing else, I think it’s egregious for state government to propose tax increases at a time when we still haven’t made the tough decisions necessary to cut wasteful spending from our budget.
I also think it’s interesting that these proposals are receiving serious consideration just one month after a sweeping transportation reform bill took effect. That bill was supposed to achieve savings and efficiencies in our transportation system through restructuring.
It’s clear to me that any proposal to increase the gas tax now is a signal to taxpayers that either the transportation bill is a failure, or that Beacon Hill is looking for any excuse to ask people to pay more money for the same old services. Either way, increasing the gas tax is a bad idea.
What do you think? Please post a comment below.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/04/09
The other night I had the opportunity to speak at the Shrewsbury School Committee meeting and to talk about municipal budget issues.
My purpose at the meeting was to present local officials with information about local aid, and to encourage them to work with me and other like-minded individuals to advocate for change.
Specifically, I encouraged them to consider four action items:
I think that, together, these action items would help us improve our ability to provide a quality education to Shrewsbury residents. You can view a copy of a letter I sent to local officials on these topics by clicking here.
What do you think of these action items? Please post a comment below. I’d love to hear your thoughts and how you think we can advocate for each of these items.
My purpose at the meeting was to present local officials with information about local aid, and to encourage them to work with me and other like-minded individuals to advocate for change.
Specifically, I encouraged them to consider four action items:
- For Fiscal Year 2010, oppose granting Governor Patrick additional authority to cut school and local aid in Fiscal Year 2010.
- For Fiscal Year 2011, oppose cuts to school and local aid. Allowing school and local aid to be “on the table” for reduction will remove the incentive to reform and streamline government to achieve needed state-level cost savings.
- Relative to Education Reform to be debated in House of Representatives, push for a fair funding formula for Charter School Reimbursement to suburban school districts like Shrewsbury.
- Support an Early School and Local Aid Resolution which will disclose the minimum state aid to cities and towns in order for municipalities to approve local budgets with a degree of certainty.
I think that, together, these action items would help us improve our ability to provide a quality education to Shrewsbury residents. You can view a copy of a letter I sent to local officials on these topics by clicking here.
What do you think of these action items? Please post a comment below. I’d love to hear your thoughts and how you think we can advocate for each of these items.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/03/09
Today is a very somber day for those of us in the Worcester area, as we pause to honor the memory of six firefighters who perished while fighting a blaze at the Cold Storage and Warehouse on December 3, 1999.
Much has changed in the ten years since the inferno that claimed the lives of these brave men, but one thing remains the same – these men are heroes who live on in our memories and whose service and sacrifice will never be forgotten.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who bravely answer the call of duty every time the fire bell rings or the police siren wails. Far too often we take for granted their selfless commitment to serving the public and keeping us safe. It’s on days like this that we should remind ourselves of the importance of their jobs and the exceptional nature of their noble devotion to the people they serve.
A memorial service will be held today at the site where the tragedy occurred, which now serves as the location of a newly-constructed fire station and a lasting memorial to the fallen firefighters. I will have a chance to spend time with another group of public safety officials today as I help them honor Brian Gerardi, who is a 30-year veteran police officer and a friend of mine being sworn in as the president of the Massachusetts Police Association.
No matter what you are doing today, I hope you will join with me in honoring the memory of the fallen heroes being remembered in Worcester today, and that you will pause to thank all of the men and women in uniform who keep us safe every day.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/02/09
City and town officials received bad news from the state earlier this week.
It seems that Governor Patrick unilaterally cut Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (“PILOT”) distributions by about 40 percent as a way to trim the state budget.
PILOT payments are the state’s way of compensating cities and towns for the tax revenue they miss out on because they can’t tax property owned by the state. State officials look at everything from state parks right down to salt sheds, and they apportion a designated pot of money to municipalities based on the amount of tax-exempt state-owned property in each community. The payments do not necessarily make up for the whole amount the municipality could collect in taxes if the property were owned privately, but they’re certainly better than nothing.
More to the point, cities and towns have come to depend on PILOT money as an important component of local aid. That’s why the Governor’s $10 million cut to this account is so painful. It’s made even worse by the fact that it’s coming mid-fiscal year, at a time when municipal budgets already have been long since approved.
In my district, Shrewsbury received about $45,000 less PILOT money than it was expecting, and Westborough’s cut was about $55,000. It’s important to remember that these communities, like many others across the state, already have been trimming their municipal budgets to the core (or beyond) to deal with challenging fiscal times. This deeper reduction in state aid will have real consequences for municipal services, whether it means eliminating an important position or scaling back a program that helps people. And it’s also worth noting that this cut comes on the heels of other local aid reductions earlier this year that forced municipal officials to come up with new ways of dealing with challenging fiscal issues on their own.
I think the Patrick Administration is doing a great disservice to people across the Bay State by cutting local aid. Citizens depend on municipal government to provide some of the most important public services that government delivers, including education, public safety, road maintenance, health safety, environmental conservation and libraries. Even if those services are supplemented by other levels of government, municipal government often delivers them more directly and efficiently, thereby improving quality of service and reducing taxpayer cost. Cutting local aid that cities and towns depend on to deliver these services is simply the wrong approach to dealing with our state’s fiscal problems, especially when our state has failed to enact cost-saving reforms and efficiencies within its own administrative operations.
I hope the Legislature will find a way to supplement these payments when we return to legislative sessions in January. Cities and towns are depending upon us to do so.
It seems that Governor Patrick unilaterally cut Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (“PILOT”) distributions by about 40 percent as a way to trim the state budget.
PILOT payments are the state’s way of compensating cities and towns for the tax revenue they miss out on because they can’t tax property owned by the state. State officials look at everything from state parks right down to salt sheds, and they apportion a designated pot of money to municipalities based on the amount of tax-exempt state-owned property in each community. The payments do not necessarily make up for the whole amount the municipality could collect in taxes if the property were owned privately, but they’re certainly better than nothing.
More to the point, cities and towns have come to depend on PILOT money as an important component of local aid. That’s why the Governor’s $10 million cut to this account is so painful. It’s made even worse by the fact that it’s coming mid-fiscal year, at a time when municipal budgets already have been long since approved.
In my district, Shrewsbury received about $45,000 less PILOT money than it was expecting, and Westborough’s cut was about $55,000. It’s important to remember that these communities, like many others across the state, already have been trimming their municipal budgets to the core (or beyond) to deal with challenging fiscal times. This deeper reduction in state aid will have real consequences for municipal services, whether it means eliminating an important position or scaling back a program that helps people. And it’s also worth noting that this cut comes on the heels of other local aid reductions earlier this year that forced municipal officials to come up with new ways of dealing with challenging fiscal issues on their own.
I think the Patrick Administration is doing a great disservice to people across the Bay State by cutting local aid. Citizens depend on municipal government to provide some of the most important public services that government delivers, including education, public safety, road maintenance, health safety, environmental conservation and libraries. Even if those services are supplemented by other levels of government, municipal government often delivers them more directly and efficiently, thereby improving quality of service and reducing taxpayer cost. Cutting local aid that cities and towns depend on to deliver these services is simply the wrong approach to dealing with our state’s fiscal problems, especially when our state has failed to enact cost-saving reforms and efficiencies within its own administrative operations.
I hope the Legislature will find a way to supplement these payments when we return to legislative sessions in January. Cities and towns are depending upon us to do so.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/01/09
It’s no secret that the Legislature is on a winter recess during which controversial business will not be debated or voted on in formal session.
But now there’s news that consideration of certain issues between now and the beginning of January might very well be shrouded in secrecy.
According to today’s Boston Globe, Governor Patrick met with House Speaker DeLeo and Senate President Murray yesterday and got an agreement that certain important legislative issues will be taken up by the Legislature early in January. Speaker DeLeo also reportedly promised to hold a House caucus session over the next few weeks to discuss a pending education reform bill.
I think it’s important that we take action on the education reform bill and other pending matters sooner rather than later, and I give credit to legislative leaders for wanting to move forward. There are millions of federal “Race to the Top” dollars on the line, and Massachusetts needs to act quickly to take advantage of them.
I also think it’s important that we oppose the Governor’s efforts to expand his so-called “9C Authority” to make budget cuts. The Governor is using the threat of deeper cuts in front-line social services to justify cutting local aid. But this isn’t a fair choice, because the Governor hasn’t cut back administrative bureaucracy first. Aside from the fact that cities and towns depend on local aid to survive, we should not be considering local aid cuts to save social services so long as waste and duplication at the administrative level are allowed to persist.
But these debates and others like them should take place in front of the public, not in a closed-door members-only caucus.
The very purpose for having a legislature in the first place is to provide a public forum for the thoughtful discussion of differing viewpoints on political issues. It’s a place for policy questions to be asked and answered, for proposals of change to be considered, and for positions to be taken by elected officials. It’s important for those discussions all to take place in full light of day for reasons of public accountability and for the sake of including citizens and their viewpoints in the process.
I still believe the best course of action would be for the Legislature to come back into session between now and the end of December to debate education reform, proposals to help balance our budget, criminal justice reforms, and other pending matters. There’s too much at stake for us to allow these issues to lie dormant until January, or to remain just the subject of closed-door policy meetings at the State House.
What do you think? Please post a comment below to join the discussion.
But now there’s news that consideration of certain issues between now and the beginning of January might very well be shrouded in secrecy.
According to today’s Boston Globe, Governor Patrick met with House Speaker DeLeo and Senate President Murray yesterday and got an agreement that certain important legislative issues will be taken up by the Legislature early in January. Speaker DeLeo also reportedly promised to hold a House caucus session over the next few weeks to discuss a pending education reform bill.
I think it’s important that we take action on the education reform bill and other pending matters sooner rather than later, and I give credit to legislative leaders for wanting to move forward. There are millions of federal “Race to the Top” dollars on the line, and Massachusetts needs to act quickly to take advantage of them.
I also think it’s important that we oppose the Governor’s efforts to expand his so-called “9C Authority” to make budget cuts. The Governor is using the threat of deeper cuts in front-line social services to justify cutting local aid. But this isn’t a fair choice, because the Governor hasn’t cut back administrative bureaucracy first. Aside from the fact that cities and towns depend on local aid to survive, we should not be considering local aid cuts to save social services so long as waste and duplication at the administrative level are allowed to persist.
But these debates and others like them should take place in front of the public, not in a closed-door members-only caucus.
The very purpose for having a legislature in the first place is to provide a public forum for the thoughtful discussion of differing viewpoints on political issues. It’s a place for policy questions to be asked and answered, for proposals of change to be considered, and for positions to be taken by elected officials. It’s important for those discussions all to take place in full light of day for reasons of public accountability and for the sake of including citizens and their viewpoints in the process.
I still believe the best course of action would be for the Legislature to come back into session between now and the end of December to debate education reform, proposals to help balance our budget, criminal justice reforms, and other pending matters. There’s too much at stake for us to allow these issues to lie dormant until January, or to remain just the subject of closed-door policy meetings at the State House.
What do you think? Please post a comment below to join the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)