sal dimasi

Want to know how the House voted on the casino gambling bill on September 14, 2011?  Read this...

It’s not often that an elected official supports a measure that effectively strips their constituents of a say on an important issue. But that’s what eight Boston lawmakers did.  [Full Article:  CommonWealth Magazine]

The State House may be the "people's" house, but how the legislation is decided, and perhaps more importantly, who influences this work, is not in the people's purview on a regular basis.  Government transparency is a good thing to advocate for in MA.

... Massachusetts lawmakers depend on closed doors at nearly every stage in deciding which laws to pass and which taxes to increase. Records on everything from the number of aides legislators employ to which special interests they meet with or even how some members vote in their committees are off limits.   [Full Article: Boston Globe]

Transparency in government is a good thing, as is compliance with ethics rules.  It seems legislators understand this...some more overtly than others.

The 52 lawyers who serve in the state Legislature juggle a briefcase full of potential conflicts as they represent individuals or companies with significant business before the state, ranging from liquor licenses to bridge repair contracts.  ...in cases where the legislators’ legal work may only give the appearance of a conflict, they must simply disclose it to the State Ethics Commission or to the House or Senate clerk. Then they are free to act. Representative Garrett J. Bradley, a Hingham Democrat... his guiding principle,... “When you’re in doubt, disclose it.’’ [Full Article: Boston Globe]

Budget hearings, legislative voting, et. al.,...

The one major difference between the two plans [municipal employees health insurance], the second of which will need to clear the Senate when the budget is debated, is the amount of savings employees are entitled to share to offset the cost of higher co-payments and deductibles.  [Full article: Wicked Local Plymouth] 

Public officials are more likely to make decisions in the best interests of their constituents when they know they’re being watched.

The indictment of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi on federal corruption charges left many in Massachusetts wondering how this could have been prevented.

We at ONE Massachusetts have learned that people in our state will support government when they know that taxes and other revenues are raised in a manner that’s fair and spent in a manner that’s wise.

The Budget Conference Committee members are currently considering Senate outside section 7A – the State Budget Transparency web portal. This measure would require the state to create and maintain a searchable website open to the public detailing costs, recipients and purposes for all appropriations, including contracts, grants, subcontracts, tax expenditures and other subsidies funded by the state government. [Amendment sponsored by Senator Cynthia Stone Creem]

Making the state’s budget information more easily accessible would encourage private citizens, journalists and watchdog groups to assumer greater stewardship of our state government.

Yesterday, MASSPIRG sent a letter to the Budget Conference Committee members currently considering this measure: Senators Steven Panagiotakos, Stephen Brewer, Michael Knapik and Representatives Charles Murphy, Barbara L'Italien and Vinny deMacedo.

Now is a good time for you to weigh in.

Lost in today’s news is an important hearing. 1:00.....A Temporary House Committee on Ethics holds a public hearing on Gov. Deval Patrick’s ethics and lobbying reform bill......Room A-1

One of our jobs at ONE Massachusetts is to provide our network members with the information they need to “pay attention” to how our government works and how we pay for it. It’s called informed civic engagement. Yawu Miller will will be testifying today for ONE Mass in support of increased transparency in the budget making process and increased transparency in the registration and reporting requirements for lobbyists.

Why? Because paying attention is a two way street and transparency is the stop light.

Andrea Estes and Matt Viser’s story in today’s Globe speculates that DiMasi’s “relationships contributed to his undoing”.  And they are correct.

There is no excusing the Speaker from not paying attention when his long time friends and supporters offered to pick up some of his personal expenses or offered him gifts, even if it was “perfectly legal”.  He just didn’t think how it would look on the front page of the paper, and how even these perfectly legal activities would further erode the public’s confidence in government.

There is no excusing his long time personal friends for exploiting their friendship with him for their own personal gain as ‘strategists” advising special interests trying to influence public policy.  I doubt they thought for a second how they were betraying the trust of their long time, now very powerful friend.