CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AND AWARDS DINNER

It is with great honor that on Monday, August 9th, I'll be hosting the 9th Annual Karyn Polito Charity Golf Tournament at the Pleasant Valley Country Clubat at 95 Armsby Road in Sutton..

The Annual Charity Tournament beneftis two local charities: Shrewsbury Youth and Family Services and the Westborough Food Pantry. With the help and generosity of many residents and local businesses, over $200,000 has been raised and distributed to date to these worthwhile organizations.

This year’s major sponsors include Central One Federal Credit Union, Dunkin Donuts, Roche Brothers, Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., J.A. Polito & Sons, Inc. and Polito Development Corp.

Registration begins at 9:30AM where a continental breakfast will also be served. There will be a shotgun start at 11:00AM. For more information, please contact Monique Rose mrose@centralfcu.com or call 508-842-2802.

AUGUST OFFICE HOURS

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of August during the following times:

August 6th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

August 6th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.


No appointment is necessary.

JULY OFFICE HOURS

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of July during the following times:

July 16th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

July 16th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.


No appointment is necessary.

JUNE OFFICE HOURS

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of June during the following times:

June 11th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

June 11th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.


No appointment is necessary.

MAY OFFICE HOURS

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of May during the following times:

May 7th from 9:00AM-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue.

May 7th from 11:00AM-12:00PM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road.


No appointment is necessary.

Statement of Karyn Polito on the House Budget

I voted no on the House budget because I believe it is the product of poor policies and even poorer procedures. At a time when our Commonwealth is facing serious challenges, the people of Massachusetts deserve a more thoughtful approach to the problems before us and better procedures to debate policy. Unfortunately, very few ideas were permitted to be debated and voted on this week. That’s bad for the House as an institution and it’s bad for the people of Massachusetts.

POLITO ANNOUNCES PASSAGE OF “RESTAURANT REJUVENATION ACT”

State Representative Karyn Polito (R – Shrewsbury) is pleased to announce that the House has adopted a budget amendment she introduced that will allow restaurants to serve alcohol during Sunday brunch hours.


Known as the “Restaurant Rejuvenation Act” and advocated by television’s “Phantom Gourmet,” Dave Andelman, the legislation has the potential to give an economic boost to the Massachusetts restaurant industry. That industry employs approximately one out of ten Massachusetts workers, or almost 300,000 people, and it is responsible for over $12 billion in annual sales. However, the restaurant industry has suffered greatly due to recent economic difficulties.

“I am thrilled my colleagues recognized the potential of the Restaurant Rejuvenation Act to create additional jobs in Massachusetts,” said Polito, who was the main sponsor of the budget amendment to enact the legislation in the House. “Massachusetts restaurants are facing tremendous challenges due to the recession, the meals tax, higher sales taxes and a new tax on alcoholic beverages. I hope the passage of this amendment will help to offset some of the costs on businesses.”

Under current law, Massachusetts restaurants outside of Suffolk county are prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages before noon on Sundays, unless local licensing boards grant permission. The Restaurant Rejuvenation Act would move the starting time back to 10:00 a.m. statewide, thereby helping restaurants to compete with neighboring states for Sunday brunch business and removing licensing differences between communities.

The legislation now moves to the Senate for its consideration.

POLITO AND LOCAL OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS RESTORING LOCAL AID

State Representative Karyn Polito and local officials will hold a media availability tomorrow, April 28, at 11:30 a.m., outside the House Chamber on the third floor of the Statehouse. Polito will speak about her amendment to dedicate 75% of state revenues that come in above forecast for restoration of local aid to Massachusetts cities and towns.

STATEMENT OF KARYN POLITO REGARDING HER VOTE AGAINST THE GAMING BILL PASSED BY THE HOUSE TODAY

The gaming bill approved by the House today is a bad deal for Massachusetts. These are the biggest licenses ever awarded by our state and it would be wrong to hand them out on a no-bid basis. The only way to obtain maximum value for the taxpayers is through a competitive bidding process. I hope the Senate makes the bill better by adding language that encourages competition and openness. As we look to expand gaming in the state, we need to do it in a way that maintains the public's confidence.

APRIL OFFICE HOURS

I am pleased to announce that I will be holding office hours in the month of April during the following times:

April 9th from 9-10:30AM at the Senior Center in Shrewsbury. 98 Maple Avenue

April 16th from 9-10AM at the Shrewsbury Towers. 36 N. Quinsigamond Avenue and 10:30-11:30AM at the Senior Center in Westborough. 4 Rogers Road


No appointment is necessary.

STATEMENT OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE KARYN POLITO ON RESOLUTION BY LEGISLATIVE LEADERS TO REDUCE LOCAL AID TO CITIES AND TOWNS

“Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill dealt a heavy blow to already-struggling municipal budgets last week by announcing that they intend to cut local aid by 4 percent in FY2011, amounting to a reduction of $200 million. I am disappointed that the legislative leadership is attempting to balance this year’s state budget at the expense of cities and towns.

While the press release distributed by the House Speaker, Senate President and Ways and Means chairs last Friday purported to speak on behalf of the entire Legislature, the House and Senate do still get a chance to vote on this proposed resolution. When we do, I will stand up against this cut for cities and towns, advocate for at least level-funding the local aid account, and I will urge my colleagues to do the same.

Times are tough and spending cuts need to be made, but our cities and towns should not be the place we look to make sacrifices. We need to keep our commitment to provide resources to our communities so that they can, in turn, continue providing vital local services to the hard-working people of Massachusetts.”

###

FIRST Robotics Regional Competition

This morning, I attended the US FIRST Robotics Regional Competition opening ceremonies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Inside Harrington Auditorium, you could feel the energy and excitement of the students, their engineering mentors and everyone else involved in the competition. Over the course of the next few days, 29 high school teams from across New England will compete for a chance to advance to the World Championships at the Georgia Dome in April.

This event truly showcases our future scientists, engineers and business leaders and makes me believe that our investment into STEM education is paying off with these students being able to work side by side with professional engineers designing and building robots all while learning to use sophisticated hardware and software.

If you have time, I encourage you to come down to WPI and check out all the hard work that these students have put in and their amazing results. Good luck to all the teams!

Karyn Polito for Treasurer

On March 1, I announced that I am running for State Treasurer this fall. If you would like to learn more about my campaign, please visit:

http://www.karynpolitofortreasurer.com

Thought of the Day - 02/26/2010

There's an interesting story in today's Boston Globe that reports that up to 30 state legislative seats could turn over next year.

The turnover is due to a number of factors. But one thing is clear. Next year's legislature is likely to include a high number of newly-elected members, and that's a good thing.

I filed a bill for term limits on the legislature earlier this session because I believe that turnover is beneficial for our state. Public office was never meant to be a career. Instead, our founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature made up of people who volunteered a brief portion of their lives to making Massachusetts a better place. They wanted people to bring the richness of their collective personal and professional experiences into the the legislature and to apply them to public policy with energy and fresh ideas. And after awhile, they intended for them to let others take their place to start the process anew.

It will be interesting to see what the legislature looks like in 2011. Hopefully it will be one full of new faces, fresh ideas, and an energetic spirit poised to take action on the important issues facing us.

Thought of the Day – 02/25/2010

Yesterday, the House of Representatives took a positive step forward on the issue of protecting children from obscenity.

The House passed an important bill prohibiting people from sending sexually graphic instant messages to minors.

Passing this law is necessary because, a few weeks ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found a loophole in our criminal laws that prevents prosecutors from enforcing obscenity laws (which were originally designed to apply to printed materials in the days before e-mail and texting) against sexually graphic instant messages. This is a growing problem in Massachusetts and in other states as people try to exploit children who are using computers and cell phones to communicate at younger and younger ages.

I voted in favor of the bill, and I hope it’s the first of many steps that the Legislature will take to protect children this session. I’ve filed other proposals that would strengthen our obscenity laws and to impose greater punishment for crimes like posing of a minor. I am also continuing my fight for stronger mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit sex offenses against children, in hopes that we can fully-implement Jessica’s Law here in Massachusetts soon.

The obscenity law we passed yesterday still awaits Senate approval before it can be passed into law. I’ll keep you posted on its progress.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY - 2/24/2010

Yesterday brought encouraging news for cities and towns as a legislative committee gave its initial approval to a “municipal relief” bill and moved it closer to passage.

The concept of “municipal relief” is nothing more than the idea that helping cities and towns financially does not necessarily involve giving them more money; it can also mean easing burdens, cutting costs and streamlining procedures so local governments have more opportunity to save money. If enough opportunities are created, the savings can really start to add up. And in most cases, the changes being made are systemic, so they will create savings year after year.

This particular bill appears to include provisions like allowing electronic payment systems in cities and towns, opening up new insurance options for municipal employees, and allowing communities to band together for bulk purchasing and mutual aid. (You can read more about the bill in this Associated Press story in today's Boston Herald.)

It remains to be seen what this bill will ultimately look like when it gets to the House for a vote, but in general, I’m a strong advocate for municipal relief. In fact, I have filed several bills of my own which would cut local health care costs and give cities and towns more ways to save money. I’m hopeful that a municipal relief bill will make its way to the House for a vote soon, and when it does, I hope that some of the ideas I have proposed might be included in the final version. I will keep you updated on the bill’s progress.

Do you have any ideas for municipal relief. Please let me know. You can post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/23/2010

Yesterday, legislation to help finances in Lawrence moved forward as the Ways and Means Committee issued a favorable report on the bill, thus preparing it for debate by the full House of Representatives.

But I don’t really think the bill is a big step forward because it doesn’t go far enough to protect taxpayers and to ensure a good result. I voted "no" on the bill coming out of the Ways and Means Committee.

The basic problem is that the bill opens up $35 million of financing to the city without setting up appropriate oversight. The bill does appoint an overseer to help the city manage its finances, but it stops short of appointing a finance control board.

I think the more-sweeping powers of a control board are necessary to make sure the $35 million is well spent and that Massachusetts taxpayers don’t ultimately become responsible for paying this money back or bailing out the city any more.

There’s no question that Lawrence needs our help. Regardless of how this mess developed in the first place, Massachusetts can’t turn its back on one of its largest communities and its people in their time of need. But it’s both fair and responsible for us to put protections in place to make sure that any financing package will work and that taxpayers in other communities – many of which are also struggling these days – don’t end up paying the price for what happened in Lawrence.

You can read more about the bill and my thoughts about it in this story in today’s Lawrence Eagle Tribune. A vote is scheduled for next week. It remains to be seen how some of my colleagues will react to this bill; many are skeptical about it and want questions answered. I will keep you posted on what’s happening in the debate.

Until then, what do you think? Do you support helping Lawrence this way, or do you favor the added protections of a control board? Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 02/22/2010

There’s an editorial in today’s Boston Herald that is a must-read for anyone interested in improving the business climate here in Massachusetts and growing jobs in this state.

The editorial talks about the fact that Massachusetts recently passed legislation that slows the growth of unemployment insurance rates charged to employers in this state.

As a result, Massachusetts employers will save about $400 million this year as compared to what they would have paid had there been no rate reform.

But the editorial also says that reform shouldn’t stop here. Massachusetts still has one of the most generous benefits systems in the nation, and it costs Massachusetts-based employers a lot of money to run the system. That discourages investment here, and it ultimately fuels the same job problem the unemployment system is supposed to address.

If we want to grow jobs here, we need to institute “systemic” reforms of the nature the Herald talks about while still making sure we keep an adequate safety net in place for those who lose their jobs. And it shouldn’t stop with unemployment insurance. Health insurance costs are also plaguing employers, and there is more our state could do to ease this burden without sacrificing access to coverage or quality of care. We also need to look at our business tax structure and permitting structure to make our state more business-friendly.

What do you think? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Please post a comment below to let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 2/18/2010

This morning’s Boston Globe features an editorial in favor of Governor Patrick’s plan to levy a sales tax on soda and candy.

I disagree strongly with their rationale in favor of the tax.

The Globe editorial is centered around a belief that raising taxes is a good way to encourage social behavior; in this case, deterring children and obese adults from eating too much soda and candy. It suggests that reducing intake of soda and candy would have numerous health benefits, including possibly lowering the risk of cancer. The editorial also suggests optimistically that other, similar steps to reduce the consumption of unhealthy items could come in the future.

Even if all of the Globe’s facts and markers about nutrition are correct (I don’t argue with them here), I still think this tax is a bad idea. It’s the latest in a series of proposals on Beacon Hill that use arguments smacking of paternalism to justify taxes and spending that taxpayers can’t (and shouldn’t have to) afford. And that’s wrong.

First, state leaders wanted to raise the gas tax as a way to encourage conservation… and, of course, to help balance the state budget without making further spending cuts. Some wanted to raise the cigarette tax to discourage smoking… and to preserve spending that otherwise would have to be cut. Now, they want to take the first step in taxing foods on the basis of their nutritional value… supposedly as a way to encourage healthy eating, but also as a way to pay for health programs that we otherwise can’t afford.

These are all mixed messages for taxpayers, but in the end, the message is clear: government wants to tell people what to do, and it expects people to pay extra for it.

I believe government does a disservice to those it represents whenever it views taxes as anything more than the necessary price taxpayers need to pay for core government services and priorities. Using taxes as a way for government to exert itself over wholly-private decisions, like what people should eat, is just as bad as using taxes to pay for government spending that’s not essential to run our state.

What do you think? Is taxing people for their consumption of unhealthy foods a good idea, or is it just plain wrong? Please post a comment below and let me know your thoughts.

Thought of the Day - 02/17/2010

Yesterday, all the major candidates in the race for Governor – except the Governor himself – actually agreed that the state sales tax should be rolled back.

As the Boston Herald points out today, the candidates had different views on what should happen afterwards. But there was consensus among them that the sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent needs to be undone.

Then, there is Governor Patrick. He not only thinks that the sales tax should remain at its current level until tax revenues pick up again, he also proposes additional tax increases on certain consumer products like candy bars this year.

Our elected officials need to remember something very important. Raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. Instead of turning to taxpayers for more money when revenues plummet, government needs to learn to live within its means. The decisions might be difficult to make, but cutting back on the size and scope of government is the only way to solve our revenue problems, and the first place to start is to trim waste and inefficiency through comprehensive reforms.

The state budget process for Fiscal Year 2011 is well underway, and it will present a huge opportunity for our state to address some of these problems. Hopefully, there will be room for lots of creative solutions and solid ideas to reform state government. I know that’s what I will be looking for, and I will keep you informed of what happens throughout the process.

Thought of the Day - 02/16/2010

Did you see the story in today’s Herald about open road tolling?

Supposedly, Governor Patrick is already looking to hire someone to implement the system along the Massachusetts Turnpike -- at a salary of $102,000 a year.

I find it disappointing that, of all the different ways Governor Patrick could try to make government more efficient, he is focusing on more efficient ways to collect money from people.

Open road tolling probably would save money in the long run by eliminating some of the infrastructure needed to collect tolls from motorists. So, on the surface at least, it looks like a worthwhile reform to explore. But you have to take a step back and think about the situation to understand what’s really going on here.

First of all, as the salary of the Governor’s proposed new “toll czar” indicates, implementing a new open road tolling system will cost money. Essentially, it’s going to cost us money to save money. Unfortunately, as I’ve pointed out before, that seems to be a common theme whenever Governor Patrick talks about reforming our state’s transportation system.

Second, the Patrick Administration says that open road tolling would be limited only to the Turnpike, where we already have toll collection in place. In other words, it would only replace existing, inefficient ways of collecting tolls; the state wouldn’t use the system to collect new tolls. Call me cynical, but are we really to believe that the state won’t expand the use of open road tolling technology to new roadways if it proves to be efficient and if we need additional money to pay for transportation?

This leads me to my third -- and most important -- point. This whole idea for open road tolling misses the mark because the focus should be on ELIMINATING the tolls, not on finding more ingenious and efficient ways of collecting them from motorists.

Someone needs to remind Governor Patrick that the most cost-effective toll system is no system at all. Coincidentally, that’s exactly the sort of system that was envisioned when the Turnpike was built. The Turnpike tolls were never meant to last forever, and it’s time for us to start finding ways to eliminate them once and for all.

What do you think about open road tolling? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/12/2010

Last night, I appeared on NECN's Broadside with Jim Braude to talk about legislation to help finances in the City of Lawrence.

I spoke about the need for a finance control board in the city and the need to avoid simply giving the city and its leaders a bailout without sufficient conditions or controls.

There's no question in my mind that the good people of Lawrence need help. The city has asked the state for help, and now we need to figure out the best way to do that. But when we do that, we ought to make sure that there are safeguards in place to make sure our work is effective and that it will generate long-term success, not just short-term solutions. And, we need to protect taxpayers by minimizing their exposure on the solutions we propose. That's why I believe we should be looking more closely at an option to place the city under receivership or to institute a finance control board.

If you'd like to watch the video, please click here.

Thought of the Day - 02/11/2010

There’s been lots of talk lately about the best way to stimulate our economy in Massachusetts and how to grow jobs here. As well there should be; this is the number one issue facing many Massachusetts residents these days.

I continue to believe that what we need to do is to make our state more competitive for businesses by lowering their costs of doing business here. And one of the best ways to do that is to make our tax system fair.

The other day, Governor Patrick proposed tax credits for small businesses and job creation in our state. These credits are worthwhile proposals but they seem like small steps forward in a much larger effort, especially when you consider recent hefty increases in the sales tax and corporate excise tax.

There is growing evidence that tax policy works to lure businesses here. For example, today’s Boston Globe has a story about a tax credit allotted to the film industry in 2005. The story says the tax credit has the potential to create a “small but robust film industry” here and to “support thousands of good-paying jobs.”

It’s particularly interesting that the study shows that Massachusetts has been more successful than other states that also offer tax credits because we have a better infrastructure and a more talented workforce in place for moviemakers to utilize. In other words, it suggests that the film industry was always willing to consider Massachusetts as a venue for its business because of what we have to offer, but the cost of doing business here was too high. Once we lowered the price, Massachusetts was able to compete with other states and to bring the business into the Bay State successfully.

As our economy lingers in recession, we should be looking for new ways to improve the business climate here in Massachusetts, and one of the first things we need to examine is our tax structure. Two leading candidates for reform are the sales tax and corporate excise taxes, both of which have undergone substantial recent increases.

Growing jobs in Massachusetts has to be Economic Priority Number One for our state, and tax policy is a great way to affect positive change.

What do you think? Do you support tax credits to lure businesses here? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/09/2010

There are two issues circulating around Beacon Hill today that I’m particularly focused on today.

The first is a $35 million bailout bill for the City of Lawrence that’s up for a public hearing today and scheduled for a House vote tomorrow.

There’s no question that the people of Lawrence are in a tough spot and they need help. But I don’t think the solution is to give more money to the same politicians who got the city into trouble in the first place. I think we need to be taking a more serious look at placing the city under receivership or a finance control board that would make the difficult decisions the city needs to get back on-track responsibly, and to make sure that state taxpayers ultimately won’t be on the hook to pay back any money the city receives in loans.

The other issue is a proposal by Governor Patrick to institute electronic toll collection systems along the Mass. Turnpike. Open-road tolling sounds attractive when you hear the Governor talk about the fact that it would dramatically reduce or eliminate toll collectors along the Turnpike and thereby save money. But, as the Boston Herald reports, the system would cost us $100 million to implement, and we can’t afford that – especially while we still have a bloated Turnpike and toll collection system in place.

And, at a more basic level, I wish the Governor would place more emphasis on eliminating tolls along the Turnpike (especially the Western Turnpike) instead of finding more efficient ways to collect them from drivers.

I’m interested to see what my colleagues think about these proposals. I’ll keep you updated on what I hear from them. But more importantly, I’d like to hear from you. What do you think about the Lawrence bailout bill or open-road tolling? Please post a comment to let me know.

Thought of the Day - 02/08/2010

Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray appear poised to offer a plan they say would help grow jobs here, according to a story in today’s Boston Globe.

Growing jobs in Massachusetts should be our state’s top priority. But you have to wonder… isn’t this plan a day late and a dollar short?

The plan under discussion would create a $50 million small business tax credit, it would make $25 million of small business loans available, it would freeze unemployment insurance rates, and it would merge together several state agencies that deal with small business issues.

I give this plan some credit because these ideas all seem worthwhile to consider. There’s no question that our state needs to do something to help job growth, particularly when it comes to the small businesses that serve as the lifeblood of our economy. And I am always happy to hear of proposals to merge responsibilities in state agencies as a reform that would save us money and increase efficiency.

But it’s also worth considering that these modest proposals come on the heels of other recent decisions that have put a stranglehold on businesses here. For example, we have levied hundreds of millions of dollars of additional corporate taxes from businesses here in recent years, increases that Governor Patrick proposed and the Legislature approved. The same goes for recent hikes in the sales tax, which makes it difficult for businesses to compete in the same way that it increases costs for individual consumers.

There is no question in my mind that these tax increases, along with other business-unfriendly policies, have forced businesses and their jobs out of Massachusetts. The latest plan from Governor Patrick, however good it might be, probably won’t be enough to get those jobs back here.

So, while I applaud these most recent efforts, I have to stop and wonder if these are really heartfelt efforts to grow jobs in Massachusetts, or if they’re just window dressing on an otherwise crucial problem our state is facing. I guess only time will tell.

What do you think? Would passing these proposals make Massachusetts friendly enough for businesses to grow jobs here, or is this plan just a glimmer of hope? Please post a comment below and let’s get a discussion going.

Thought of the Day - 02/05/2010

My office received news yesterday that's relieving.

It appears the Glavin Center will not be sold by the state this year after all, despite fears that Governor Patrick was moving to expedite closure and disposition of the property.

Recent developments started when the Governor's FY2011 budget plan was released in late January. The document contained a provision to allow the state to expedite the sale of certain "surplus" properties, and the Glavin Center was listed as one of the targeted parcels.

The Governor's budget language came as a surprise because the parcel was supposed to be under a cost/benefit study by the Patrick Administration following negotiations I had with the Governor last year. As it turns out, following further investigation, the Division of Capital Asset Management has clarified that the Glavin Center was mistakenly included on the list of properties subject to expedited sale, and that it won't be sold in 2011 after all.

The long-term future of the Glavin Center remains uncertain, and I am continuing to work with the Patrick Administration to identify its best use and the best outcome for the patients who call the center home. I am firmly committed to the current use of the facility for residents. And I believe that any discussions about a different use must be done in an open, transparent and fair manner, with the highest regard for the residents who call Glavin their home. At least for now, the facility will remain open without the threat of an imminent sale.

Thought of the Day - 02/04/2010

Have you been following the situation up in Lawrence?

The city is currently in dire fiscal straits. The budget is so far out-of-balance that city officials can’t figure out how bad the problem really is. And until they figure that out, the city can’t send out tax bills to residents, which is making the problem even worse.

City officials have turned to the state for a $35 million bailout. That bailout could be voted on soon. But there are two glaring problems with that plan.

First, Lawrence isn’t the only community in our state that’s experiencing financial trouble. But it is one of the few communities that has caused many of its own problems, and it’s currently the only one getting any form of preferential treatment. Aside from the fact that I’m no fan of bailouts, this just doesn’t seem fair to the 350 other municipalities in our state who are struggling just as much to make ends meet locally.

And second, the bill stops short of placing Lawrence into receivership. Past experiences in Chelsea and in Springfield show us that receivership is the best option when a city like Lawrence is unable to solve its own problems. Giving more money to the same local officials who can’t manage the money they already have won’t solve any problems. It’s time for new leadership to straighten things out and to get the city back on track. And it’s unfair for the current mayor of the city to hold onto that position (at a reported salary of $100,000 a year) and to also serve as the city’s state representative at the same time (at $60,000 a year).

I’ve sent a letter to state officials asking them to look deeper into the issue of receivership and to present their rationale for or against receivership to the House when a vote is scheduled. I know why the good people of Lawrence need assistance, but I’m curious to hear why my colleagues might think that local officials there deserve to be bailed out.

What do you think? Are you in favor of a bailout? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 02/03/2010

Yesterday, the Board of Higher Education approved a plan for UMass Dartmouth to accept the assets of Southern New England School of Law as a gift, and to thereby operate a public law school in Massachusetts.

I think this plan is a mistake at this time.

When you listen to proponents of the plan, it sounds like a great idea. After all, how could the state turn down a gift like this one, one that involves an entire private law school? Having a public law school would create additional affordable education opportunities for Massachusetts residents. It also would increase our stock of public interest lawyers and it would improve the diversity of our legal community.

So why would we say “no?”

Well, the problem lies in the fact that Southern New England School of Law is not accredited by the American Bar Association. That limits what its students can do after graduation and thereby makes it a less competitive option than other accredited law schools.

The main reason Southern New England School of Law is not accredited in the first place is because it lacks the financial capacity to invest in itself and to make improvements needed to be accepted, things like adding to its law library collection. That’s why it offered itself to the state – the state has public funds to invest in the school that aren’t available to the private institution. Under the Board of Higher Education’s decision yesterday, that responsibility now lies with the state.

These are taxpayer dollars we’re talking about. I say that now is not the time for our state to put investing in a public law school at the head of our education priority list. UMass has already been forced to make cutbacks in its regular course offerings because of budget cuts. Why put more responsibility on its plate when it can’t meet its existing obligations? And why should we invest in ideas like this one when we have other education responsibilities we can’t meet, like funding Chapter 70 for cities and towns and improving under-performing school districts?

If you ask me, this is a bad idea for our state right now. But, now I’m asking you. What do you think? Is the Board of Higher Education’s vote a good one, or will this “gift” end up costing our state too much money? Please post a comment and let’s get a discussion going.

Thought of the Day - 02/02/2010

The Worcester Telegram has a story today about an issue that’s very important for my district: the potential closure of the Irving A. Glavin Regional Center in Shrewsbury.

I oppose the closure of this facility because of the unique services it provides dozens of patients and their families that I represent in and around the town of Shrewsbury.

Governor Patrick has discussed closing the facility several times in the past. Last year, there was an agreement that there would be a cost-benefit study conducted before any further steps were taken. The results of that study are due this summer. But now, Governor Patrick has included language in his FY2011 budget proposal to allow the state to declare the Glavin Center as “surplus” property and to sell it to a private developer.

The 120-acre Glavin Center property, which is along the Route 9 business district, obviously would be attractive to private developers if it were sold by the state. And its reuse could have certain economic benefits for the town.

But it would be devastating for the 55 residents who call the Glavin Center home, and for their families, who would be left with no alternative for their care.

The Glavin Center stands out from many other state facilities because it is a community-based center. Its residents are encouraged to become an active part of the Shrewsbury community by holding jobs at local businesses and by participating in local activities. The facility itself already provides benefits to the community by providing agricultural land to a local farmer and by providing soccer fields for community use. The Glavin Center also contains three group homes for higher-functioning residents, homes offered by the local Shrewsbury Housing Authority. I helped to secure state funding for the construction of these homes just a few years ago.

The Glavin Center also stands out from other state facilities because it is an efficiently-run campus. It has a modern physical plant that places few demands on state resources. It also employs 165 staff members, serving a vital need in the local economy.

To be honest, I fail to see how closing such a modern, well-run facility could be a cost-cutting priority for the state when there are so many other programs we could cut from our budget that would not have such a profound impact on vulnerable individuals. That’s why I am working with State Senator Michael Moore to see Governor Patrick’s language removed from the state budget.

What do you think? Is allowing the state to declare the Glavin Center surplus a good idea, or is the price just too much to pay? Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.

Thought of the Day - 02/01/2010

Have you heard the news?

Powerball is here in the Bay State.

That’s right. Because of a recent deal state Treasurer Tim Cahill entered with other states, Massachusetts is now one of 33 states that offer the Powerball lottery game to residents.

Many people here will be excited to be able to play. Because of the game’s size, jackpots are typically very large, making it very tempting to play. And tickets cost just $1. According to the Boston Globe, participating merchants had sold 85,000 by 2:30 p.m. yesterday, the first day Powerball tickets were available in Massachusetts.

But the real winners here are Massachusetts cities and towns, who will be the primary beneficiaries of the $25 million annual deal. Most of the money goes to local aid, and with the problems municipalities are facing these days, any money we can put toward local aid is welcome news.

Are you happy to have Powerball here in the Bay State? Do you think you’ll buy a ticket? Please let me know by posting a comment.

Thought of the Day - 01/29/2010

I began my day yesterday at a Corridor Nine Chamber of Commerce breakfast to discuss the status of current political issues on Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill.

One of the things I focused on is the state budget. Basically, I think the budget plan that Governor Patrick released the other day is unsustainable because it relies too much on a risky hope that tax revenues will pick up this year and that additional stimulus money will be received. It also adds about three percent to the bottom line of last year’s budget using one-time money from the federal government and the Rainy Day Fund, money that won’t be there for us when we try to balance the budget next year.

I also talked about health care. To be sure, health care is one of the biggest issues facing America right now given the debate in Washington, D.C. It was interesting to hear Congressman McGovern’s thoughts in that regard. But health care also remains an important policy issue for state government. There’s more our state could do independently to help drive down health care costs. For example, Governor Patrick should be doing more to require insurers, providers and hospitals to be accountable and explain why their costs are going up at regular public hearings. We passed such a law in 2008, but it remains virtually unenforced.

By mid-day, I was sitting in the House Chamber in Boston listening to Speaker Robert DeLeo tell legislators his visions for the upcoming year. He sees the House passing a budget that’s free of new taxes, and possibly a gaming bill that creates jobs. He promised to pass additional cost-saving reforms. Meanwhile, there is lots of talk about the possibility of passing legislation to cut municipal budget costs and to ban texting while driving. It will be interesting to see how these visions play out over the coming months and how many of them turn into reality.

What’s your vision of how things are going on Beacon Hill and where things might go over the next few months? I’d like to know. Please post a comment below.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY - 01/28/2010

Yesterday, Governor Deval Patrick announced his budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011. Here’s how I think the Governor’s Budget adds up:

Patrick’s recommendation for an overall three percent increase in spending, based on a risky bet that state tax collections in this poor economy will actually increase by about the same amount;

PLUS, Patrick’s plan to base long-term spending commitments on $800 million of one-time federal economic stimulus payments that have been promised to our state this year;

PLUS, Patrick’s proposal to base spending on the uncertain receipt of another $600 million of federal economic stimulus funds that have not even been committed by Congress yet;

PLUS, Patrick’s withdrawal of another $175 million from our state’s already-depleted Rainy Day Fund to cover spending;

PLUS, Patrick’s request for new tax hikes on tobacco, candy, and soft drinks;

PLUS, Patrick’s empty promise not to cut local aid, which does not account for local aid cuts last year, and which overlooks his request for additional “9C powers” that would allow him to cut local aid after the budget is passed;

PLUS, Patrick’s blueprint for state government that includes 66,575 full-time equivalent positions, up from about 62,000 workers needed to run state government just five years ago;

PLUS, Patrick’s plan to cut spending on some vulnerable populations as a way to cover spending increases in other areas;

EQUALS, a spending plan that is: not fiscally responsible; unsustainable; contrary to the best interests of Massachusetts residents; and, something I can’t support.

What’s your calculus? How do you think the Governor’s budget adds up? I’d love to hear from you. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thought of the Day - 01/27/2010

Jeff Jacoby has a great column in today’s Boston Globe that points out one of the glaring problems with government today.

He notes that, at a time when unemployment has hit the ten percent mark, the federal government has been adding more than 10,000 jobs a month, and the number of federal employees making more than $100,000 has jumped 14 percent. He also says that public employee pension costs are starting to skyrocket and to take a real bite out of state budgets.

Massachusetts is no exception to this trend. A recent study by the Pioneer Institute showed that our state government added 7,500 positions to its payroll from 2004 to 2009. According to their analysis, about 6,400 of these positions are unsustainable because they don’t provide direct assistance to vulnerable populations in our state.

Meanwhile, there have been several recent stories pointing to growth of public employee salaries here. Take, for example, this story that “consolidation” of state transportation agencies actually led to the creation of 11 new public relations positions for a total of more than $800,000 a year. And our public pension system costs us millions of dollars a year to run.

Jacoby points out in his column that this trend is testing taxpayer patience nationwide. I think he’s right, and it’s time for something to change. We simply can’t afford the sort of government that spends money like this on itself.

What do you think?

Thought of the Day - 01/26/2010

Governor Patrick is filing is budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011 tomorrow, and today's morning papers are providing our first glance into what his plans might include.

According to the Boston Globe, Governor Patrick is proposing to change several laws related to state pension benefits as a way of cutting down on pension costs and closing loopholes that allow unfair benefits. In a separate story, the paper reports that the Governor is proposing to consolidate energy costs within the executive branch.

Together, these proposals could save millions of dollars a year.

I give credit to the Governor for taking these steps to help balance our budget and keep costs down. But, I wonder if they are mostly symbolic, or if they are actually indicative of a budget that starts making more responsible choices than we’ve been accustomed to.

Yesterday, the Beacon Hill Institute put out a press release advocating for a Tax and Expenditure Limitation (TEL) on state spending. That sort of plan would limit line item expenditure growth to the rate of inflation, adjusted for population growth. There are lots of details that would have to be worked out, but overall, I think this is the sort of bold reform we need to bring our budget back under control.

We need to get our state fiscal priorities back in order, and there’s no better time than right now.

I hope Governor Patrick’s budget will include solid ideas to save our state money, and that it will place a priority on local aid, health and human services spending, education, job creation and housing. These are the things Massachusetts residents need the most in this current economy.

I also call upon the Governor to submit a budget that’s free of new taxes, and which includes bold reforms that will streamline state government and improve our delivery of core services while eliminating waste, duplication and inefficiency, and stripping out spending on unnecessary programs or programs that could wait until a better day to be funded.

We will see tomorrow what Governor Patrick ends up proposing in his budget, what his priorities are and how they would affect the quality of life of citizens across our state during the coming year.

And, if I’m not satisfied by the Governor’s solutions, I will start working immediately to make sure the budget that comes out of the Legislature this summer is one we can be proud of, and one that will protect people and communities the right way.

Thought of the Day - 01/25/2010

The opening line of this story in today’s Boston Globe says it all:

“Massachusetts marked a sobering milestone last month: For the first time since World War II, the state ended a decade with fewer jobs than it had at the beginning.”

According to the article, Massachusetts has failed to replace many of the high-tech jobs that were lost when the dot-com bubble burst several years ago. At the same time, we’ve also lost a full one-third of our manufacturing jobs. The net job loss since 1999 is about 55,000 jobs.

The sad reality is that many Massachusetts families don’t need a newspaper story to tell them what’s wrong with our economy. Thousands of families are dealing with job loss as part of their daily lives, and as unemployment checks, bank accounts and retirement savings begin to run out, people are struggling to find ways to pay the bills.

When you hold up today’s Globe story against another recent article in the MetroWest Daily News, you begin to understand the real effects of this problem. According to numbers cited in the MetroWest Daily News, about 277,000 people have moved out of Massachusetts since 2000.

As far as I’m concerned, the inescapable conclusion is that, for every job Massachusetts lost, a family was forced to move out of this state to search for better opportunities elsewhere. And they took with them the job skills they sought to apply here, and the kids they sought to educate here, and the talents they sought to enrich our state with.

This trend is more than just unsustainable. It’s a recipe for economic disaster. And it’s time for our state to do something to grow jobs here.

Governor Patrick promised to do something about creating jobs in his State of the Commonwealth Address last week. But he needs to realize that Massachusetts residents need more than just another year of promises and false hope. They need jobs. Now.

How has the recession been affecting you? Do you know someone who was forced to move out of Massachusetts due to job loss? What do you think we should do about these problems? Please post a comment below. I’d love to hear from you.

Thought of the Day - 01/21/2010

On Tuesday, more than two million Massachusetts voters went to the polls in search of someone and something to believe in. They found it in the form of Scott Brown and his promise of bold new leadership in Washington.

Last night, those same voters will be disappointed by what Deval Patrick failed to offer them in his State of the Commonwealth address.

Governor Patrick had an opportunity to prove to Massachusetts residents that he has a way to lead us through the next year with plans and strategies to make Massachusetts a better place. He had a chance to rise to the occasion and to match the energy in the electorate with an energetic vision for progress for our state. But he didn’t.

I am disappointed because the Governor did not offer a vision that adequately addresses ways to fix our state’s economy. He needed to demonstrate that he can bring jobs back to Massachusetts and trigger investment here. But he didn’t.

He also needed to confidently show that he will balance the budget this year and control state spending, while holding the line on new taxes and fees. But he didn’t.

Governor Patrick had an opportunity to roll out new ideas to make government less costly, more efficient, increasingly transparent, and completely accountable to those it serves. But he didn’t.

And, he could have shown leadership by getting back to basics and putting emphasis on the right priorities this year, things like supporting cities and towns with local aid, improving our schools and making our streets safer. But he didn’t.

In short, Deval Patrick had an opportunity to prove to Massachusetts voters last night why he is the right man to lead Massachusetts and to fix the problems our residents are facing in their daily lives. He needed to convince voters that he deserves another chance. But he didn’t.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY – 01/21/2010

Now that the US Senate race is over, some political attention is shifting back to Beacon Hill.

People are asking how Massachusetts political leaders intend to address some of the biggest problems facing our state.

Tonight, we might get a glimpse into some of those proposals when Governor Deval Patrick delivers his annual State of the Commonwealth Address.

I will be listening intently to what the Governor says in his remarks, and specifically what he envisions for the upcoming year. And, I’ll be looking for him to make specific proposals to move our state forward in several ways, including:

• FIXING THE ECONOMY – In order to be successful tonight, I think Governor Patrick needs to prove that he has a plan to fix our state’s economy. He needs to demonstrate that he can bring jobs back to Massachusetts and trigger investment here.
 
• FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY – I want Governor Patrick to show me that he will balance the budget this year and control state spending, while holding the line on new taxes and fees.
 
• GOOD GOVERNMENT – I will be watching to see if Governor Patrick has any new ideas to make government less costly, more efficient, increasingly transparent, and completely accountable to those it serves.
 
• RIGHT PRIORITIES – In addition to the above, I hope Governor Patrick will convince me that he is getting back to basics and putting emphasis on the right priorities this year, things like supporting cities and towns with local aid, improving our schools and making our streets safer.
 
• LEADERSHIP – Most of all, I think Governor Patrick needs to lay out a vision for how to make Massachusetts a better place and how he intends to take the lead in making that vision a reality.

It sounds like a tall order, but that’s what I think our state needs in order to succeed. Interestingly, it looks like the editors over at The Boston Globe will be looking for more or less the same thing. There’s an editorial in today’s Globe that calls on the Governor to show “what else he will do to promote government that is both responsive and frugal.”

We’ll see what happens when the speech starts at 7 p.m. tonight. I’ll be sure to let you know what I think. Until then, I’d love it if you’d let me know what you think. What should Governor Patrick talk about tonight? Please post a comment below and let me know.

Thought of the Day - 01/20/2010

Yesterday was an historic day in Massachusetts as Scott Brown won the special election for the United States Senate.

I think what makes the day so significant is that the residents of Massachusetts have restored this seat in the Senate as the people’s seat. Over two million people voted yesterday, and their votes actually counted.

I’ve talked to many friends and constituents about what happened yesterday, and in general, I’m finding that people feel empowered in that they did something to take back their government. People from all over the state united around Scott Brown, notwithstanding their different circumstances or differing political views. That’s something very special in politics these days.

The fact that Scott Brown was able to win yesterday means that we once again have a level playing field for candidates here in Massachusetts. It sends a message to elite political leaders in this state who have ignored the people for too long. These people are upset with how things are going, but they also believe in the strength of our country and they feel that America’s best days are ahead of her, not over.

What do you think about yesterday’s results? Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 01/19/2010 - PLEASE REMEMBER TO VOTE TODAY

Today is Election Day in Massachusetts.

Today is the day when Massachusetts voters will choose someone to represent them in the United States Senate, in the first open contest for the seat in almost half a century.

Today is the day when people will decide how they want to be represented in Washington on issues as important as health care, the war on terror, and the economy, just to name a few.

Today is the day when we get to tell the nation what sort of future we want for our state.

Today is the day when the din of television ads, “robo-calls” and stump speeches gives way to the only sound that really matters: the voice of the electorate.

Today is the day when one person living within our democracy can exert more political influence than millions of oppressed people across the world combined.

Today is the day when ordinary citizens are called upon to make extraordinary decisions.

Today is the day.

Whatever your choice, whatever your opinions, whatever your schedule today, please get out and cast your vote.

Martin Luther King Day

May we all pause today to remember the life and legacy of
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thought of the Day - 01/15/2010

There is news in the Boston Globe today that the state’s Health Connector is taking over administering health insurance plans for about 17,000 small businesses. These businesses typically employ fewer than 5 people, and they formerly looked to a private agency, the Small Business Service Bureau, to help them administer health care costs.

It’s reported that the move could save these private employers about $300 a year in health care costs for each employee. And in this economy, those are welcome savings.

But the fact is that there are many costs that are straining small businesses these days, and our state simply isn’t doing enough to make life easier for them. And that’s unfortunate, because small businesses form the backbone of our economy.

Massachusetts needs a pro-business mentality if we hope to keep people from leaving this state, much less if we hope to attract economic activity. The number one problem facing Massachusetts residents these days is a lack of quality jobs, and our state needs to be taking the lead in creating opportunities for job growth here. And that’s true whether you’re talking about a Fortune 500 company or a budding entrepreneur starting their own business.

What do you think? What do you think our state should be doing to grow jobs? Please post a comment below and join the discussion.

Thought of the Day - 01/14/2010

Later today, the House and Senate are poised to take a vote on a plan to reform education in under-performing school districts across our state, and to position Massachusetts to access federal “Race to the Top” funding by expanding charter schools.

Sadly, it’s difficult to say whether or not passage of this bill today is good news.

Even though state officials have known for months that reforming our education laws would be necessary in order to tap into Race to the Top funds, they have waited until the very last minute to pass those reforms into law. In fact, applications for states to access Race to the Top funds are due next Tuesday.

To make matters worse, the final bill has been worked out behind closed doors by a legislative conference committee. Its final decisions were not made until late last night under the cover of darkness.

This means that a two-thirds vote of both branches is needed to even discuss the bill today, much less to pass it into law. Most legislators won’t have had enough time to read the bill completely and to accurately decide whether to vote for it or not based on its details. These details matter a lot, and I believe the importance of the issue at stake merits more than today’s last-minute rush job.

One of the most important parts of this bill for me is what it means to traditional public school districts. An early look at the final product indicates that the bill extends the reimbursement schedule from three years to six years, and it increases the total reimbursement amount from 200 to 225 percent. To me, this means that the bill overall might improve opportunities for students in under-performing school, but it does little to address financial concerns of school districts that are working hard and performing well. Over time, the issue of fair reimbursement to districts that send students to charter schools may become more pronounced as more charter schools are established, and we will have to wait and see how this turns out.

Unfortunately, because it’s a conference committee report that’s up for debate, there is no opportunity under legislative rules to amend its provisions to make it better today, even if legislators find problems with it.

I’ll keep you posted on the process in the House today. Until then, what do you think about this bill? Please post a comment below to let me know your thoughts.

Thought of the Day - 01/13/2010

According to the Boston Globe, cities and towns across Massachusetts are growing increasingly concerned about the state’s bleak financial picture and what it will mean for local aid, fearing deep cuts in school assistance from the state later this year.

I don’t need a newspaper to tell me how important local aid is to cities and towns, and how debilitating a further cut in local aid would be this year, particularly when it comes to supporting our schools.

Cities and towns should not be made to suffer for the state’s poor fiscal management and unwillingness to make tough decisions to balance our budget. We should not be talking about laying off teachers when we have waste in our state budget, like millions of dollars of unnecessary legislative expenses, and when our state transportation agency is still bloated with administrative positions. Teachers are on the front line of helping kids in our state, and we should make it our priority to fund them before we pay for wasteful state programs.

Governor Patrick has been restoring money to several important programs lately because of better-than-expected revenue numbers. I’m hoping that local aid will continue to be a priority. I’m also hoping that local aid will be a priority when Governor Patrick files his budget in a few weeks. I’ll be checking his budget closely for state aid numbers, and I will be looking for ways to make sure cities and towns have the support they need if it’s not already in the budget.

Thought of the Day - 01/12/2010

Yesterday, local employer Charles River Labs announced that it plans to cease operations in Shrewsbury due to a slowdown in the biopharmaceutical industry, laying off approximately 300 employees in the process. This is the latest of a series of job reductions announced by Massachusetts employers in recent months. For my district, it’s especially bad news because it hits home.

Our state can’t afford to keep seeing bad headlines like this in the papers. Massachusetts residents need jobs. The strength of our economy depends on jobs, as does the strength of every household across the commonwealth. Whenever we hear of an employer like Charles River Labs cutting back its operations, it’s evidence that we still have a lot to do to fix our economy and to put Massachusetts back to work again.

On the surface, this decision and others like it are business judgments being made by companies across Massachusetts. It’s perfectly understandable that private sector employers would make difficult decisions to trim their budgets at a time like this, much like I’ve been urging the public sector to do. But it’s also safe to assume that the unfriendly business climate we have created for ourselves in Massachusetts is playing into such decisions, if only indirectly. Public policies like high tax rates translate into added costs for struggling businesses, and when these inescapable costs are factored in to the bottom line, they sometimes lead to other unfortunate results like job loss and factory closures.

There’s only so much we can do to help fix the global economy, and there’s no doubt that the best remedy for our job market here in Massachusetts would be a general economic turnaround. That will come, in time. But there is a lot that we can do to make Massachusetts a friendlier place for businesses to operate, like keeping taxes and fees low, maintaining a robust education system to train workers, and creating affordable housing to keep residents’ cost of living low. We’re not doing enough on that front, and if we want to avoid seeing more stories like the one involving Charles River Labs, we need to start acting now.

You can read more about Charles River Labs in this story in the Boston Business Journal. What do you think? Are you being affected by the Charles River Labs decision? What do you think the state should do to prevent stories like this in the future? Please post your thoughts below.

Thought of the Day - 01/11/2010

For the second year in a row, I’ve notified the state treasurer that I will not be accepting the 5.5 percent legislative pay raise the governor certified in 2009.

The reason is very simple: with the Massachusetts economy still in bad shape and with our poor state fiscal situation, now is not the time for state legislators to be accepting a pay raise.

Our state needs leadership from its elected officials in order to get us out of this economic situation we’re facing. Leadership can take many forms, and in this case, I think it’s important for elected officials to lead by example. This is a time for frugality and for shared sacrifice, not a time for pay raises.

You can read about my decision and similar ones by other legislators in this story in today’s Worcester Telegram.

What do you think about legislative pay raises? Should more legislators be following suit and refusing the pay raise? Or, do you think it’s OK for legislators to accept the raise? Please post a comment below and get a conversation started.

Thought of the Day - 01/08/2010

When you think about it, there have been a lot of disappointing failures on Beacon Hill recently. We've seen politicians behaving badly. Property tax relief was promised, but instead other taxes went up. Reforms take too long to get debated, and when they are, they get watered down to the point of being ineffective... or actually costing us money to implement.

My list goes on and on. But if you're interested in lists like this, check out Howie Carr's column in the Boston Herald today. He's got a great list of things that are frustrating about Massachusetts politics these days. He says they add up to reasons to support Scott Brown in his bid for the US Senate. But you don't even have to talk about the Senate race to know that Carr's list is a bunch of good reasons why Massachusetts voters should be frustrated with their political leaders, and why they should start demanding change.

What do you think? What's on your list of things that frustrate you about politics these days? Please post a comment below and let's get a conversation started.

Thought of the Day - 01/07/2010

Last night, Massachusetts took steps to improve under-performing school districts by bolstering our support for charter schools. I support giving parents additional education options through the cultivation of charter schools, but I believe those opportunities should not come at the expense of students who remain within the traditional public school system.

I proposed an amendment to the education reform bill that would have helped to resolve this problem by creating a funding formula that would more fairly reimburse school districts when students who live there attend charter schools. It would have helped to level the playing field between public school districts and charter schools, which I believe is an important priority for our cities and towns. The amendment also had the support of the Massachusetts Superintendents Association, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and Stand For Children.

I am disappointed that this amendment was not adopted as a way to improve upon the changes being made in the education reform package. Instead, the amendment was recommended for further study, as members refused to even discuss a way to ease the plight facing cities and towns. Unfortunately, last night, members preferred procedural tactics and politics to good policy.

The debate over the bill lasted late into the night, with a flurry of changes being made at the last minute, decisions happening behind closed doors, and numerous amendments being consolidated together into one. In the end, it was impossible to tell what was actually in the final legislation and because of this, I could not vote in favor of the bill.

Going forward, I will continue to try to find ways to improve our education system here in Massachusetts while holding cities and towns harmless for any changes.

TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT #49  Ms. Polito of Shrewsbury, Mr. Kaufman of Lexington, Ms. Garry of Dracut, Ms. Ehrlich of Marblehead, Ms. Benson of Lunenberg, Mr. Guyer of Dalton, Ms. Peake of Provincetown, Mr. DiNatale of Fitchburg, Ms. Callahan of Sutton, Ms. Provost of Somerville, Mr. Stanley of Waltham, and Mr. Miceli of Wilmington move that House Bill 4410 be amended by striking lines 909 to 915 of subsection gg of Section 2 and adding in the following new section:-


(gg). In a year during which a sending district‘s total district-sponsored charter school tuition amount is greater than the sending district‘s total district-sponsored charter tuition amount for the previous year, the sending district shall be reimbursed by the Commonwealth in accordance with this paragraph and subject to appropriation; provided, however, that no funds for the reimbursements shall be deducted from funds distributed under Chapter 70. The reimbursement amount shall be equal to 100 per cent of the increase in the year in which the increase occurs, 60 per cent in the second year, 40 per cent in the third year, and 35 per cent in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years following.

Thought of the Day - 01/06/2010

Massachusetts residents have always taken great pride in the quality of the public school education we offer to our sons and daughters. Our public schools are some of the best in the world, and they do a great job providing skills that our young people need to compete for jobs in the complex workforce of the future.

But there are always ways we can improve our education system, particularly in certain chronically-underperforming school districts.

Massachusetts took decisive action to reform its public schools with passage of the Education Reform Act of 1993, which changed the way we support public schools with state aid, opened the door for charter schools, and established the MCAS exam for accountability. Changes soon followed on the federal level with passage of the No Child Left Behind Act during the Bush administration.

Now, President Obama is proposing a new federal education reform package aimed at tracking student performance, establishing nationwide standards and recruiting teachers. Part of this “Race to the Top” initiative involves dedication of $4.3 billion of federal economic stimulus funds to state grants for innovative programs to improve schools.

Massachusetts could potentially tap into about $250 million in Race to the Top funds over the next four years. But in order to do so, we need to comply with certain federal mandates, including a requirement that we lift a cap on charter school spending that exists under current state law. And we need to act quickly, since the deadline to apply for Race to the Top funding is January 19.

A bill that would do just that is the first order of business for the House of Representatives today as we commence formal legislative sessions for 2010.

I support the bill’s swift passage. Race to the Top funding is too important for us to forfeit.

But there’s also more at stake with this legislation, and I think that certain adjustments could be made. In particular, we need to be sure that this next step in education reform continues to safeguard municipal finance systems that form the backbone of our public schools.

Under current law, per-pupil tuition payments for charter school students are deducted from local aid payments to the cities and towns where charter school students live. However, the state phases-in those deductions with three years of graduated reimbursements totaling 200 percent.

The pending legislation would increase the overall amount of reimbursement cities and towns would receive, but it would reduce the payments municipalities see each year, making them wait almost twice as long to recoup the same amount of money. This would have a serious impact on the ability of cities and towns to meet local school budgets, especially in these difficult fiscal times, and it would thereby defeat the purpose of charter schools as a way to improve the overall quality of public education by offering competitive alternatives that inspire public schools to do better.

I have filed an amendment that would change the funding mechanism for charter school reimbursement, and I hope my colleagues will consider including it as part of the final bill. Under my plan, total reimbursement would be increased to a total of 305 percent over six years. This would give cities and towns better reimbursement, while at the same time preserving attributes of the current funding formula meant to provide initial assistance to sending districts for their loss of Chapter 70 dollars to charter schools and their inability to immediately realize savings as a result of the loss of those students.

We need to level the playing field so we don’t pit charter schools against traditional public schools, and so that we don’t diminish the dollars necessary for students within the traditional public school system. I also want to make sure that suburban communities like those I represent are not adversely impacted by changes in the funding formula.

Our state has no more noble or important mission than to educate our young people. I hope the Education Reform Act pending before the legislation will help us meet our obligations more successfully and make our schools something that we can be even more proud of in future years.

What do you think? I’d love to know your thoughts. Please post a comment below.

Thought of the Day - 01/05/2010

Yesterday, I sent a letter to Governor Patrick and legislative leaders urging passage of a bill I filed to require a dangerousness hearing prior to granting bail to defendants charged with a sexual offense.

You can read about the letter in this story in today's MetroWest Daily News, and you can see the letter itself here.

The bill, House Docket 4772, remains pending and awaits referral to a legislative committee for a hearing.

Please check out this Call to Action on my Web site for more information about the bill and to see what you can do to help make sure it passes.

Thought of the Day - 01/04/2010

There’s a story in today’s Boston Globe that state officials are focusing lots of attention on this year’s state census to make sure we get an accurate count of people who live here.

The census count, which is required by the Constitution every 10 years, means a lot for our state.

According to the Globe article, Massachusetts could stand to lose billions of dollars in federal funding and perhaps even a congressional seat if the numbers fall far below the tallies from the last time the census was taken.

In fact, state officials and nonprofits are so concerned, they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on outreach efforts to make sure the count is right, particularly among inner-city and immigrant communities, which are typically difficult to count.

Of course, I support efforts to make sure we get an accurate census count this year. It’s important to know not just how many people are here but also what our demographics look like, because that information helps us run our state effectively.

But what’s ironic is that state officials are paying such close attention to the counting process itself after having paid scant attention to the factors driving the numbers in the first place. Our state wouldn’t have to be so worried about ferreting out every possible census response so as to bolster our numbers if we had better policies in place to grow jobs here.

Managing our census effectively is good. But making sure our state offers high-paying jobs, quality education, affordable housing, low taxes and exceptional education opportunities is the best way to make sure people want to call Massachusetts home, not just in 2010 but for years to come.

What do you think? Please post a comment below.