So sez DeLeo. His letter to the House membership (and released publicly) is below. The tone is remarkably positive. I'm impressed by both chambers' willingness to take on CORI, which must be a tough (but correct and necessary) vote for a lot of members.

November 18, 2009

Dear Colleague:

As you know, today marks the last day of full formal sessions in calendar year 2009 as dictated by our Joint Rules. Few could have imagined when the 186th General Court convened on January 7th that this first year of our biennial session would see such unprecedented legislative activity. After first strengthening the rules that govern our own body, we passed unprecedented reforms in transportation, ethics, lobbying, campaign finance and pension law; dealt compassionately yet decisively with the worst budget crisis in a generation; stopped a toll increase that would have affected thousands of drivers throughout Massachusetts; ensured our Commonwealth would be fully represented in the United States Senate; protected and continued to promote affordable housing; and passed omnibus legislation to support and assist the brave Bay Staters who serve in our armed forces.

To be sure, the second year will see as much or more activity as we have a great deal to accomplish. In addition to the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, which will certainly prove no less challenging than the present one, we will have a host of issues to tackle in the six months prior to July 31st. Some of those issues I have previously stated would be on our agenda, such as our coming debate on the merits of expanded gaming in Massachusetts. But additionally, two bills which have received, or will today receive, initial consideration by the Senate will also be under consideration once we reconvene: Education Reform and CORI legislation.

continues on the flip ... 

Last evening, the Senate passed an amended version of the Education Reform Act. This legislation was the product of many hours of labor on the part of Chairwoman Walz and the Joint Committee on Education. I cannot express enough my deep appreciation for her and the committee’s efforts. These efforts began with the filing of two bills by the Governor that he believes will help strengthen the Commonwealth’s application for a Federal Race to the Top Grant. The first relates to a targeted charter cap lift. The second would modify the Commonwealth’s accountability system for our lowest performing schools and districts, and also provide for more so-called “innovation” in all existing districts.

These bills were combined by the Joint Committee on Education into legislation which attempts to address many difficult and long standing issues surrounding charter schools generally, and also advances ways to promote rapid school improvement and innovation efforts in our traditional district schools.

The bill has now been amended and passed by the Senate. However, as of the sending of this letter, the Senate bill has not yet even been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Given this, and having spoken with Members individually and listened to the concerns raised at yesterday’s caucus, I believe it would be a disservice to the Members of the House and, most importantly, to the students and families of the Commonwealth to attempt to consider this bill at today’s session.

As the amended bill is analyzed by the Ways and Means Committee, we will focus our energies and resources on crafting legislation that addresses our unacceptable achievement gap and maximizes potential federal dollars by ensuring our application is as strong as possible. We are cognizant of the fact that much of the public school system in Massachusetts is performing wonderfully. We are universally acknowledged as the highest achieving state on national and international assessments of student achievement, and we have sustained that status for an extended period of time.

However, the fact that there is excellence and high achievement in many corners of Massachusetts’ educational system is not an excuse for inaction in the face of glaring need. Far too many children and their families are left behind, and we do not intend to allow that realty [sic] to continue.

Therefore, the House will continue to work on this legislation through the remaining days of the year. Please make sure that during this time you express your concerns and ideas concerning the bill so they can be properly considered. Please also anticipate debate on this matter upon our return to formal sessions in January. As the date for filing of applications for the Race to the Top Grant is January 19, 2009, it would be my intention to debate our own bill, conference with the Senate, and send a final bill to the Governor’s desk in time to have our efforts reflected in the Commonwealth’s application. This course, which gives us sufficient time to complete our work while not endangering our grant application, will be of far greater benefit to the Bay State than if we were to attempt to unnecessarily rush the bill through for the sake of political expediency. The House is dedicated to improving education for all Massachusetts students and will ultimately join with the Governor and our colleagues in the Senate to make timely and significant changes to our educational system without jeopardizing the excellence that characterizes so many of our public schools.

Finally, with respect to CORI legislation, it is my understanding that the Senate will attempt to debate such legislation today. As Chairman O’Flaherty is still in the process of vetting this legislation currently before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, I would similarly suggest that to address it now would be to do a disservice to this important piece of public policy. It would be my intention to allow the committee process to proceed on this matter in order to allow for a full and thoughtful analysis of it policy implications.
At today’s session we have a number of items to address including a vehicle addressing our current budget deficit. I look forward to working with you today on this and the other important matters before us. It has been a true honor to serve as your Speaker for the last ten months, and I can think of no greater honor than the opportunity to continue our efforts together in the coming months as we engage the great challenges—and opportunities—that lay ahead.

Very truly yours,
ROBERT A. DeLEO
Speaker of the House

Report from Anti-Violence Project Chair Don Gorton:

The Boston Globe estimated that 300 people filled State House hearing room A1 for the 11/17/09 hearing on anti-bullying legislation. That estimate sounds about right: it was standing room only. A large number of the seats were filled by students from the Rashi School, a Newton-based Reform Jewish private school, who were attending as part of a class project. There were perhaps 40 school-age children in the audience, and their presence alone was a powerful signal to legislators.

Initial Testimony

11 bills in total were under consideration, but the bulk of the support was behind H. 483, An Act Relative to Bullying Prevention, sponsored by Rep. John Rogers of Norwood and initiated by the Anti-Defamation League ("ADL"). Rep. Matt Patrick of Falmouth was the first to testify, and he threw his support behind H. 483. Next to testify was Rep. Anthony Cabral of New Bedford, who introduced H. 364. He advocated that the various bills be consolidated into a single piece of legislation to report out of committee. He said he wanted a "bill with teeth." He noted that educators and health care providers have a duty to report child abuse if they learn of it, and said the rule should be the same for school employees who find out about bullying. He advocates that "consequences" be imposed where a school employee fails to report bullying activity.

House Minority Leader Brad Hill of Ipswich testified in favor of his bill, H. 428. He noted that anti-bullying bills have been pending in the legislature for 6 years, and criticized the delay in enacting a law. He said that he has regularly received assurances from Superintendents that they're committed to acting against bullying and have plans, but still the problem seems to be getting worse. He suggested that schools need "better plans." Responding to Rep. Hill, Rep. Marty Walz, House Chairman of the Ed Committee indicated that the committee would likely develop a single piece of legislation for action, taking the best from all the bills.

Rep. Paul Donato of Medford, who co-sponsored anti-bullying legislation with former Sen. Jarrett Barrios, testified in favor of anti-bullying legislation generally, and noted that too much time had passed without legislative action. A parent of a bullied student from New Bedford, Gary Pinto, testified in support of Rep. Cabral's bill. He had organized an anti-bullying community group called "safe zones." He favored mandatory reporting. Grace Fritato of New Bedford advocated efforts to rehabilitate bullies as part of a comprehensive response.

61-year-old Evelyn Kaufman testified as a survivor of bullying. She emphasized that bullying during childhood had left her scarred for life. She attempted suicide and continues to need mental health services. A Quincy parent, Goulastan Malek (sp.?) described the bullying to which his partially blind son had been subjected, and how the school had failed to act to remedy the problem despite repeated requests.  
ADL Coordinated Testimony

Michael Sheetz, the Vice-Chair of the ADL regional board, described the ADL bill, H. 483 as the most comprehensive of the 11 under consideration. He noted that Massachusetts lags behind in efforts to fight bullying; 38 other states, including North Carolina and Alabama, already have laws in place. He advocated that the bill be amended to add into the definition enumerated categories, differentiating characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, which influence bullies' selection of targets. Asked why enumeration was warranted, Sheetz said that bullying related to sexual orientation and gender identity is not treated as seriously otherwise. Chairman Walz requested proposed amendment language to add in enumerated categories. (GLAD has developed an amendment which has the support of the advocacy organizations participating in the lobbying effort.)

The most moving testimony of the day came from a panel of three parents of bullied children. First to testify was Theresa Jackson, the mother of an autistic boy from Sandwich. 12 years old at the time, the boy went to a school dance and "had the time of his life." Another student videotaped his unusual dance movements and posted the video on You Tube, triggering abusive comments online and taunting from classmates at school. The boy was devastated because he could not understand why someone would do that to him. Ms. Jackson choked up early in her testimony, and I teared up too. She described the insensitive reaction of school administrators. One teacher told the boy to "suck it up." The boy wound up transferring to a different school and remains terrified of going to another school dance. Ms. Jackson had the committee riveted as she spoke.

Sirdeaner Walker of Springfield testified about the suicide of her 11-year-old son Carl Walker-Hoover earlier this year. He was repeatedly taunted as being "gay" and for "dressing like a girl." Ms. Walker complained to school employees, but nothing was done to make the bullying stop. She was told that bullying was "ordinary social interaction" and that Carl and his tormentors would be friends by seventh grade. She described being at home one evening, cooking supper for her 4 children and thinking that Carl was doing homework in his room. When she went to his room, she discovered his body hanging by an electrical cord, an image which continues to haunt her. She has since teamed up with GLSEN to promote awareness of harassment triggered by sexual orientation and gender identity prejudice.

The third parent, Dr. Robin D'Antona, lost her child to suicide brought on by remorseless bullying in 1993. Since then, she has dedicated her life to anti-bullying education, and is a certified trainer in the Olweus anti-bullying method. She noted that there is an established positive correlation between effective bullying prevention and student academic achievement. She had three basic points to get across: bullying is pervasive, controllable, and affects everyone. A legislator asked if the law should cover charter schools, such as the one Carl Walker-Hoover attended. Responding, Chairman Walz said whatever bill comes out of committee will apply to charter schools. Chairman Walz was understated when she described the parents' testimony as "extremely powerful."

The next panel included 4 students, including 2 from the Rashi School in Newton. The most interesting witness was an admitted former bully. The Rashi School has a robust and effective anti-bullying program, and the student was actively counseled and assigned to do a research project on the effects of bullying on its target. He said he developed compassion and empathy for his targets, something he had not felt before, and that prompted a change in his behavior. A female student said she had been insensitive and practiced social exclusion, until a school awareness campaign led her to rethink her behavior. Emily Dale of Swampscott related the torment she went through when she started 8th grade. She was taunted for wearing glasses and being Jewish. When she reported the bullying, the bully was mildly disciplined, but things got worse as the bully's friends ganged up on her. The school did nothing to protect her from retaliation. Emily had an episode where she destroyed all of her personal items in her bedroom, then retreated to her closet to cry. She said she gained the courage to carry on when her mother came to her and extended a hand. She's now in a private school. Finally, Brigitte Berman, the teenaged author of Dorie Witt's Guide to Standing Up to Bullies spoke about her harrowing experiences and how she developed strategies for standing up for herself.

A panel of experts followed. Dr. Elizabeth Englander, head of the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center ("MARC") at Bridgewater State College, delivered 11 pages of comments from the parents of targets of bullying. She described the role of MARC, which offers free bullying prevention programming and training for Massachusetts schools. She said there was a need for the state to define minimum standards to give schools uniform guidance in addressing the problem. Professor Jack Levin of Northeastern University stressed the long-lasting effects of bullying. He recounted a conversation he had with a former target in her 40's, who is so debilitated by childhood bullying that she is unable to hold a job or form intimate relationships. He also noted that targets can lash out in horrific violence. He spoke of the Virginia Tech gunman who killed 32 people. He had a history of being bullied that stretched back to his Middle School days, and was never offered "a helping hand." Heidi McCoy, a graduate student studying at Bridgewater State under Dr. Englander also spoke, offering statistical information.

Testimony of Right Wing Groups

Two organizations which have fiercely opposed LGBT rights in Massachusetts, Mass. Resistance and the Mass. Family Institute, offered cautionary testimony, but did not flatly oppose legislation. Brian Camenker of Mass. Resistance voiced his suspicion that anti-bullying legislation was a "homosexual activist cause." He argued that "special interest groups" were behind the legislative push, and pointed to the overflow crowd as evidence of their machinations. He said the bill represented an "agenda." He contended that H. 483 was overly comprehensive and "way overdone." In his somewhat desultory remarks, he also protested the characterization of Mass Resistance as a "hate group," which he insisted is not true. (The Southern Poverty Law Center includes them as a "hate group" in its authoritative listing.)

Camenker drew pointed questions from the committee, particularly H.483 sponsor Rep. John Rogers. He had to admit that he supported the provision for parental notification when children are bullied. He said the way to deal with bullies was "to read them the riot act.". He admitted that bullying is often triggered by perceptions of the target's status. As he put it, "kids act weird" and that causes bullying. Put on the spot by Rep. Allen McCarthy, he said some legislative action was necessary.

Sally Knowlton expressed her concern that anti-bullying education was twisted to support homosexuality. She said that bullying prevention conveys a message that "gay is good" and that message needed to be stopped. She cited an incident in Washington state where a nine-year-old boy was praised by a teacher for saying he didn't like it when kids called other kids "gay" as though that were a bad thing. She asserted that being gay is not good; it leads to sickness and death; and no one is born "that way."

Evelyn Reilly of the Mass. Family Institute, which espouses more a "moderate" brand of homophobia than does Mass. Resistance, conceded that something needed to be done. She said the bills before the legislative were well-intended but had some problems. For example, she opposes provisions calling for anti-bullying education to be woven into general school curriculum subjects. She also saw no need to address issues of discrimination. She supported a stripped-down version.

Other supportive testimony

Although I will not recount the testimony in the interest of brevity, other important stakeholders spoke in support of H. 483 at the request of the ADL. These witnesses included Asst. Attorney General Maura Healy, the head of the Civil Rights Division in the Office of the Attorney General; Canton Police Chief Ken Berkowitz who testified on behalf of the Mass. Chiefs of Police Association; Julie Johnson, who testified on behalf of the Mass. Teachers Association; the principal of Sharon High School (the only school administrator to speak); Sheila Decter of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action; Attorney Sam Bickett of GLAD; Lisa Perry-Wood, Executive Director of the Mass. Commission on LGBT Youth; Co-Chair Jeff Stone of the Greater Boston Civil Rights Coalition; and Co-Chair Arline Isaacson of the MGLPC.

Some of the most powerful testimony came from members of the public who had not been recruited to appear and speak. John Kuyper of Roxbury introduced himself as a survivor of bullying for being gay in the 1950's. He said his experience was like "Peyton Place meets Lord of the Flies." He described being taunted as a "crybaby" and noted that his fundamentalist minister father offered no support. He said LGBT victims suffer alone. 50 years later, he said the wounds of his adolescent experience are still there, and that the sense of anger never leaves.

Kathleen Godbaut of Weymouth delivered a petition signed by 200 students at Weymouth High School calling for legislative action. The petition was prompted by the suicide of Carl Walker Hoover. David Laird testified as the father of 4 children, the oldest of whom is in fourth grade. He described his son's torment and his daily protestations that he didn't want to go to school. He said he had gone to school officials, who lacked understanding of how to take effective action. He said they needed guidance and help. John Graham, a nonagenarian who said he had been neither a bully nor a target, was moved to appear after reading a newspaper headline about the bullying of autistic students. Hard of hearing, Mr. Graham loudly decried the delay in action on anti-bullying legislation. He said the effects of bullying last a long time. He felt that bullying should be treated as a mental defect and a crime. Targets of bullying should not have the burden of solving the problem themselves yet schools turn a blind eye. Finally, a Quincy resident who has been a firefighter in Waltham for over 20 years quietly conveyed his pain as the father of a transgender son who died of a drug overdose earlier this year, after years of being bullied.

Conclusion

Only the House members of the Ed Committee attended the hearing, since the Senate was in session at the time debating a larger education reform bill. Nevertheless, the Senate members of the committee are seen as generally supportive already, while the opportunity to educate the House members was especially valuable. Committee members stayed throughout the 3-hour hearing and paid careful attention to the testimony. The impression I gathered from Chairman Walz was that the committee views the issue as one demanding action after years of delay. The committee is likely to combine the pending bills into a single version to report to the full legislature, and was open to suggestions for improving the final product. All in all, the presentation was well-coordinated, thorough, and deeply moving, but not too lengthy or repetitive. I was misty-eyed for much of the hearing, but then I'm a survivor of bullying myself and related to the testimony on a very personal level.  

Dear friends,

As you may have heard, we just passed CORI reform in the Senate as part of the crime bill, a momentous, innovative step toward a criminal system that works to return productive citizens convicted of a crime to a contributory life. I am proud of the work my fellow Senators - particularly Senate President Therese Murray, and Senators Chang-Diaz, Creem, and Eldridge, among many others - have done getting to this point. I am also proud of the wide support CORI reform had: even of the 12 Senators who voted against this bill, several spoke in favor of the CORI piece.

As offered, this bill fixes several key aspects of current law. Among the most important:
? It moves the sealing and dissemination of criminal records to 10 years for a felony and 5 years for a misdemeanor. This will allow those who have served their time to get back to being productive citizens quicker, and not pay a too-long penalty for a long ago transgression. This reduction from 15 years and 10 years also moves the starting time on the timing to immediately after someone is released from prison.
? Non-convictions will no longer appear on CORI reports. This allows accused citizens to avoid penalties for crimes they weren't convicted of.
? We've "banned the box" that asked if someone has been convicted of a felony on written job applications, removing a HUGE psychological and actual hurdle for prospective employees.

I must note that this balanced bill also maintains strong law enforcement priorities. The expanded bill as filed contains mandatory supervision provisions, and law enforcement agencies will have expanded and immediate access to CORI records.

As we've worked on this bill, I've come to know many people whose lives have been unduly altered by relatively minor transgressions in their past. A medical student prevented from participating in a certain clerkship because of an underage alcohol possession conviction; workers who are consistently denied opportunities to even demonstrate their qualifications because of the stigma attached to the word "convicted."

When a citizen is convicted of a crime, it shouldn't be the end of their life. It shouldn't mean entering an unbreakable cycle of unemployment, more crime, recidivism, re-incarceration, and so on. Too often, otherwise productive citizens are essentially told they aren't welcome to work or live where they may want because of a distant, non-violent offense that they have already paid their due to society for.

Serious crimes deserve serious punishments from our judicial system. But once a sentence is served, we shouldn't keep doling out punishments as a society. We are a great Commonwealth. And we are better than sentencing one of our own to a life as an unwanted.

While this isn't the end of the road, I am heartened that after a long, hard trail traversed by so many on the legislative and advocacy side, we've gotten this far. This is a well-rounded bill that has brought together advocate groups from all sides. The CORI piece is being supported by everyone from Neighbor-to-Neighbor, to the District Attorneys, to business groups. I anticipate the House taking up the matter in 2010, and I urge you to contact your representatives in the House to make sure CORI reform passes when they return to session in January.

Thanks for your support!
State Senator Harriette Chandler
Join me on Facebook!

According to one of my favorite internet news sites, TalkingPointsMemo, things are breaking on the Senate side of the healthcare reform process, and we may have our much awaited cloture vote this weekend.

Several things seem to be happening:

* Harry Reid meeting with moderate Senate Democrats

* The Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the Senate bill, and the numbers look good. The CBO projects the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $127 billion over 10 years.

The Senate plan will cover 94% of Americans by 2019.

Details below the fold:
The complete TPM article:

Democratic leadership has distributed figures to reporters from a CBO analysis of Senate health care legislation. The numbers affirm what we reported this morning--that Majority Leader Harry Reid is very pleased.

The health care bill--which includes an opt-out public option--will require $849 billion over 10 years in new spending, to be paid for with cuts to Medicare, while reducing the deficit by $127 billion.

In that time it will extend coverage to 31 million Americans--94 percent of citizens will be covered by 2019.

Over the second 10 years, CBO projects even greater cost savings--up to $650 billion, with the caveat that after 10 years, their analyses become highly uncertain.

This meets all of President Obama's goals, and, as has been the pattern during this legislative process, the Senate bill comes at a lower cost, and with greater cost-savings than the House bill, while the House bill covers more Americans.

TPM also says Ben Nelson appears to be supporting this version.

Nothing I can find on whether the Senate version has anything like the Stupitt Amendment.

[Crossposted from ONE Massachusetts by Harmony Blakeway]

As our community leaders and advocates look through the dramatic cuts being made to all manner of state structures and programs, we thought it would be good to look at one of our many success stories. This is just one example of a victory we can achieve if we work together to give it the proper support:

Drop in Smoking RatesState coverage for cessation programs hailed
Lower income Massachusetts smokers have dramatically abandoned their habit amid a major state campaign that vigorously promotes and pays for tobacco addiction treatment, according to a report scheduled to be released this morning.

Smoking rates among the poor plummeted 26 percent in the first two years of the ongoing state program, a striking result that is already drawing national attention to the effort. Officials targeted a population that historically had the highest smoking rates in Massachusetts. [Full Globe Article]

Although the study shows great success, including decreases in smoking-related health issues like  asthma and heart attacks - funding for Massachusetts smoking prevention and cessation programs has been decreased by budget and 9C cuts from over $12 Million spent in FY2009 to $4.5 Million for FY2010. [Funding Details]

It is these types of cuts that are making folks ask for a more stable, balanced solution to our budget problems - not just for their specific program to be spared, but for a reformed look at our revenues, at our tax loopholes, and at what public structures are building a better Massachusetts.

Yesterday, Governor Patrick released the New Americans Agenda, a comprehensive list of 131 recommendations to better integrate immigrants into the economic, social and civic fabric of our Commonwealth. The 131 recommendations are broken down into 12 primary issue areas, ranging from employment and workforce development to health and education. The report is a collaboration between the Governor's Advisory Council on Immigrants and Refugees, the Office for Refugees and Immigrants, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA), and ten partner organizations across the state.

The drafting of the report involved an inclusive, three-pronged process. The information that resulted in these recommendations came from a combination of community-based input from more than 1,200 individuals at six statewide forums held in Chelsea, Hyannis, New Bedford, Lowell, Springfield, and Fitchburg; existing research and literature; and the expertise of more than 175 professionals in 12 policy working groups. We believe the product is a thorough and comprehensive set of recommendations that will help build a better Massachusetts for all its residents.
While some of the recommendations will garner all of the headlines, we welcome members of the Blue Mass Group community to delve deeper into a report that represents the best recommendations of policy experts and the immigrant and refugee communities of the Commonwealth. Immigrant integration is in the best interests of everyone in Massachusetts, since having an immigrant population that is fully engaged and supported benefits our economy and the strength of our democracy.

Some highlights include:

? Improve access to re-licensing for immigrants and refugees with professional degrees from their home country

? A recommendation to allow all students residing in MA access to in-state tuition rates who have completed 3 years of high school in MA, graduated, and sign an affidavit promising to pursue citizenship when a pathway becomes available, regardless of immigration status

? Provide parents enrolling LEP (Limited English Proficient) students in schools with a multilingual guide to navigating particular aspects of the state education system

? Funding for English for speakers of other languages classes to increase the available slots for the thousands of immigrants (17,000) currently on waiting lists

These recommendations are about benefiting the Commonwealth as much as immigrants: stronger schools, improved public safety, more qualified specialists, stronger families, and successful small businesses benefit all residents. We also hope this will help move the debate on immigration in Massachusetts from one based on rhetoric to one based on fact.

As promised, here a video excerpt from our interview with Treasurer candidate Steve Grossman.  This was the last question, and ended up being one of the most interesting.  Grossman is very clear that he is willing to use the power of voting the shares held by a $55 billion (or so) pension fund to advance progressive values, both within and outside the companies in question.  See what you think.  (Sorry about the lighting - that sunny spot on the wall threw off the exposure.)

David and I sat down with Steve Grossman for about an hour this afternoon. Grossman, the former DNC chair, 2002 gubernatorial candidate and chairman of Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, has in the meantime returned to the family business in Somerville, where we met him. (David will have video later.)

Grossman seems quite eager to propose a more progressive model of the office than Tim Cahill -- although he barely mentioned Cahill by name, and studiously avoided making invidious comparisons between Cahill's stewardship of the role and his own vision. But contrasts were clear: Grossman, for instance, repeatedly mentions the impact of budget cuts and job loss on the least fortunate (Cahill, on the other hand, has said our health care law is a "luxury" that we may not be able to afford).

Grossman says his candidacy has four main priorities:

• Job growth, through investment/leveraging of pension funds in local businesses
• Financial literacy: Would like the Treasurer's office to get involved in educating people about finance. Mentions Jamie Eldridge's Asset Development Commission as something to build on.
• Strengthen the school buildings fund (How?)
• Strengthen local aid via the lottery. (How?)
  

My lightly edited notes from the conversation are on the flip.
Grossman: Treasurer's job is bully pulpit;  has a lot to do with economic health of state. Economy affects vulnerable. We'll not be able to cut our way out of crisis. Use pension funds to create jobs: If banks aren't lending, bring some pension funds together to challenge investment funds to come off of sidelines. Put $ to work with diversified portfolio.

BMG: So does the state become a small business lender? Or nudge others to do so?
State is catalyst to free up capital. I know about business -- family business has been around 100 yrs. We've had bond with people in this company. Treasurer can be catalyst: Use small slice of funds to leverage banks for growth of liquidity capital. [State Rep.] Dan Bosley thinks it's a good idea. Want to make sure we take advantage of small business energy in MA. Gov't shouldn't pick winners, but we should convene best and brightest to expand small biz.

Key priority: Financial literacy. Jamie Eldridge chaired Asset Development commission. 40% of people in state live in financial instability. Jamie laid out a vision to improve financial stability. [I think] no young person should leave high school without some degree of financial knowledge. Best practices: SEIU1199 partnered with GBIO & Citizens Bank to teach financial literacy course. Bank set up $400 bank acct for each of those people. We should have [financial literacy] 800 numbers, hotlines, websites.

Welcome Home program: Returning vets get $500 -- job of treasurer is to find those vets.

Local aid: Treasurer oversees the lottery -- returns $800 mil to cities and towns. Critical for local services, teachers, etc. Sales are declining b/c of lottery.

BMG: Do you support expanded gambling?
Role of treasurer: Gov and lege leaders support expanded gambling. So question is how do we manage it? How do we avoid RI's situation? Lottery sales will be affected as part of expanded gambling. We have to deal with gambling addiction. I was disappointed to see funds cut for gambling addiction treatment -- cut from $1mil to $500k. Treasurer should have role.

In 2002 [as Gov candidate] I opposed expansion of gambling. But 20,000 people work in building trades who want to work. So there are thousands of jobs. Joblessness affects the whole person. Gambling -- those are decent jobs -- some of those 318,000 jobless people need them. I counted license plates at Foxwoods -- 38 out of 100 were MA.

BMG: What about the state's debt?
We have $16B of general obligation bonds. Debt rating agencies are OK with that. We're balancing books on the backs of the most vulnerable. We can't take on a lot of new debt. School building authority is under treasurer -- money comes from sales tax. Now sales tax revenue is down. SBA barely has enough to pay back old obligations. Schools that need fixing - -can't get done. If sales tax revenues grow, then we can do a lot more for cities and towns and schools. Preparedness is 3rd leg of my candidacy. If they have more money they can have more bonding capability.

(Candidacy is green -- wind power from CA, carbon is offset. )

Re: Unfunded pensions: In January (FY2011 discussions) cities and towns' losses will come to bear. Now you have to fully fund your pension by 2030. There's a case to be made to extend those obligations out to 2040. Otherwise you're going to have to choose between funding pension obligations vs. current spending -- public safety, teachers, etc. We can't just kick the can down the road -- but during this time of crisis, there's a strong case to be made and strong interest among public officials to extend the date out.

Relationship between governor and treasurer has to be close. Support current gov -- he's been dealt very bad hand, and you have to make tough decisions. But as treas, it's my obligation to work with CEO of state. When you don't have that relationship that hurts the people of the state.

BMG: Should more muni pension funds be consolidated with state?
Not up to me to deliver a lecture to county and muni pension funds. If they feel the state's performance is better, we're happy to have them. And if you don't perform at certain level, you have to be consolidated.

Not for profits: Spending a lot of money on duplicative services. We could bring together NFP's, cut overhead and focus on service delivery. Newton -- all these cultural institutions aren't doing very well, but there's a cultural alliance moving into the same offices. That's wise. Analogy to pension funds -- I would advise anyone to look at whether they're performing as well as us, and if they don't think they can do better, or if there's too much overhead, go with us. And if you go for excessive return, you probably took on too much risk.

[Apropos of nothing] ... Politics is for me the way to bring strong, vibrant communities. Strategy to win: Start and end with strong community organizing. Howard Dean: People won't accept change until the pain of the status quo exceeds fear of change. Dean even in defeat totally revolutionized politics in America. Up until that point campaigns were command and control. But citizens have to be empowered, that they're maiking their own decisions, that their work on their street is important. Dean gave people a sense of stakeholder-ship. How do you do that? I had 25 young activists at my house. We listened. What a magnificent two hours. Use of new media -- but it comes down to people to people.

BMG: What about providing arts and culture $ to cities to create community around arts?
I think the world of cultural entrepreneurs like Carole Charnow. Mass. Cultural Council has been catalyst for that. Anita Walker articulates vision for role off arts in state like MA; we have one of the most vibrant cultural clusters in country. Richard Florida Rise of the Creative Class. We qualify. The cultural space is a winner -- it's a magnet.

BMG: Is there a role for an activist treasurer, a la what Eliot Spitzer proposes?
We should use bully pulpit more aggressively. When the average CEO in US makes 500x what average worker makes, then as treasurer I will show up at stockholders' mtgs and vote our values. Hard to know how much impact it will have. We own ~$55B in pension funds, mostly common stocks. Got to be careful -- but message on compensation says something to compensation cmtes, to others -- that these practices are no longer acceptable. Shouldn't be acceptable to state. Activist values -- shouldn't invest in Darfur, eg. That kind of role is one the treasurer should take on -- when our values are at stake. It doesn't cost us in the long run. We can find another company to do business. Can be good fiduciary and sensitive to progressive values.

The Environmental League of Massachusetts sponsored a candidate debate today at Boston University.  I was planning either to live-blog or shoot some video, but my portable internet failed me, and I wasn't in a good place to take pictures.  So I took notes instead -- they are on the flip, raw and unedited, just the way you like it.  ;-)

My take-away: they all did pretty well.  As in the last debate, though, Khazei was the only one really willing to take a strong stand that was substantially different from that of the other candidates.  In the first question, for instance, which had to do with the extent of local control over wind projects, Khazei was the only one squarely for giving government more authority to overrule local opposition to new alternative energy projects.  The others were sort of weakly in favor of local control, but with a more streamlined process.  (Some, of course, would interpret "streamlined" to mean "with less local control."  So maybe it's just semantics.)

Note also the following statement just issued by Khazei regarding a question from Mike Capuano about whether he would meet or take money from a lobbyist for the Sierra Club.  My notes reflect that the question was only about taking their money, not meeting with them, but perhaps the tape showed differently.

This afternoon, Alan Khazei participated in a candidate forum about environmental issues. Khazei is releasing the following statement to clarify a question:

"In the environmental forum today, I was asked if I would not meet with lobbyists, particularly a lobbyist from the Sierra Club.  In my zeal to make the point about the dominance of PACs, lobbyists, and special interests in Washington, I said I would not.  That was a mistake on my part.  I should have said that I will be open to hearing all views, will meet with citizen members of the Sierra Club as well as lobbyists they hire, and work to change the laws so that non-profits do not have to hire lobbyists or register as lobbyists in order to make their voices heard.  There will be times when I am working as a senator where there will be lobbyists in the meeting, because they are pervasive in Washington.

The issue for me is not the meetings as much as are you taking their money? And then who will you ultimately be accountable to, the lobbyists or the citizens of Massachusetts? I am not taking PAC or lobbyist money and I won't as the next Senator from Massachusetts. I also have made it clear that if you are a citizen of Massachusetts, you will not have to hire a lobbyist to get a meeting with me or my staff, you will only have to be a citizen from Massachusetts with a good idea and an honest concern. I will also work vigorously to get public financing of campaigns so that more people can run for office without having to turn to lobbyists, PACs, and special interests for their financial support.  

I made a mistake today in my answer to that question, and I own that."

I don't think anyone can credibly claim that he or she will never meet with lobbyists in Washington.  Lobbyists are all over the place in DC, and after all, lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity.  But taking their money is of course optional, and Khazei has been clear about that.  He even told us that he would refuse a contribution from BMG PAC!

Anyway, I hope the notes are useful.
notes on environmental league of MA forum.

standouts out front - all pags all the time

opening statements: entirely predictable.  pags was "for climate change."  not quite what he meant to say.

q1 beth daley to cap. ted k agst cape wind. all candidates for it.  wind projects thwarted by local oppo.  ma ranks 32 in US.  should gov't have more power to overrule local oppo?
cap: no, i don't.  believe that local auth should have reasonable authority to control quality of life.  nantucket sound is appropriate.  i also believe in enviro justice.  always ends up that worst items end up in poorest areas. never in wealthiest areas. if you take away some local control, dooming poorest in our society to bear brunt of burden.  burden should be spread out.  enviro justice requires some degree of local input.  shouldn't be determinative.
coak: we need both centralized way forward and local input. need to streamline approval.  
kz: "my answer is yes." fed gov't should have more power. this is a crisis.  we have to deal with it.  cape wind stalled for years.  need to move aggressively on this.
pags: need local control but has to be streamlined.  shouldn't be able to delay 10 years.

q2 sasha pfeiffer to coak.  green jobs.  deval spent big $ re green jobs, but evergreen is taking jobs to china.  what to do?
coak: MA can be leader in R&D - green jobs, enviro is new frontier. want to keep R&D and manufacturing here.  learn this lesson painfully.  at federal level can provide tax incentives, credits.  in MA, if we want to be the leader, can't have businesses taking fed $ and then leave.  
kz: reason they're moving to china is the companies are not sustainable. 1. fair trade agmt with china. 2. proposing clean energy institute, like NIH - president of MIT endorsed.  Feds have pool of $ to invest, but not the lead investor - in partnership following private investors, VCs.  then state is not stuck having put a lot of public $ at risk.
pags: we have not invested in clean tech as much as we should have.  have to have agreements where companies stay for finite period of time, subsidies for producing product, getting it to a certain stage.  otherwise they will lose $.
cap: these jobs are leaving because of trade and tax policy.  we don't have fair trade.  every business is encouraged to form off-shore - it's insane.  have been trying for years to change it.

q3: BU sr [there was a Boston University senior on the panel whose name I never quite caught] to kz: electrification coalition - idea is to get more green cars on road.  asking feds for >$100M over 8 years.  but lead company tanked in stock mkt.  how much is too much to invest?
kz: proposing a new clean energy institute.  like NIH.  public/private partnership investing strategy.  following private sector leads - their money is at risk as well as taxpayer $.  also proposing energy bonds, like war bonds.  a way for all citizens to say they want clean energy.  this is a way for american to be big citizens - invest that money through clean energy institute.  challenge is understanding the market.  gov't can't lead, but can support.  a 4-stage process - the big challenge is getting from pilot stage to market stage.  huge investment needed to get products to market.  public/private partnership is the way to do it.
pags: most successful ec dev programs marry private capital with opportunities to get public capital.  create energy bank that would lend to these companies, but then market decides.  create something like research triangle park in NC for energy.
cap: support investment in basic research, but concerned about applied research - that's what private $ is for.  very dangerous - end up picking winners and losers.
coak: one problem is that batteries are expensive.  gov't can support research, encourage scientific community to address these questions.  but scientific progress isn't always in a clear line.

daley to pags: how would you vote if nuclear power stays in climate bill?
pags: would vote no. nuclear can stand on its own.  a big problem.  84% of our energy is fossil fuels.  have to look at cap&trade or carbon taxes.  have to get everybody on board to do it - if we do it ourselves, we'll be uncompetitive.  wouldn't subsidize nuclear power - let private enterprise do it.  it's competitive.  don't support offshore drilling.  key is to end dependence on oil.  need alternatives.
cap: depends what else is in the bill.  prefer carbon tax to cap&trade.  house bill is progress but could be a lot better.  had to put nuclear power in not because of what we wanted, but had to get votes out of south and SE.  had to throw things in for coal and steel.  needed that to get moderate Dems on board.  if the only problem is nuke, would vote yes.  but that's unlikely.
coak: about 30% of power is nuke.  concerns are safety, cost, waste.  have had problems since 1970s on all issues.  would look very closely at bill.  nuclear can't be off the table, but would focus on those issues.  No on offshore drilling.
kz: if Kerry and Reid and Obama say it's the best we can do, I'll vote for it.  against subsidizing nuclear, but would support.  it's in because of PACs and lobbyists.  asks coak what lobbyists contributing would want you to do?
coak: as AG i've always disclosed $ and make decisions on merits.
kz: we have to tell the voters how we'd vote.  if obama, kerry, reid say it's the best we can do, i'll vote yes.
coak: bills don't come fully formed from heaven.  will work hard to improve it.  that is i understand the work of a senator.

pfeiffer to pags: MA is part of RGGI.  goal is to cut carbon emissions by 10%. critics say goal is too modest.  
pags: issues are (1) RGGI is only a region, and (2) companies are struggling due to cost.  have to look at how to phase this in.  we should charge for cap&trade to make it more like a carbon tax.  have to phase in, look industry by industry.  have to give business enough time to react.  this is 50-year program.  at 16% alt fuels today.  need to set a goal, start moving that way.
cap: have to shoot as high as you can get, but you can't get there.  we can't control emissions from midwest that pollute us. should shoot for realistic ranges.  on federal level, don't start off being "reasonable" on CAFE standards - that lets us end up somewhere in the middle.
coak: have been involved in MA support for RGGI, we support.  has appropriate incentives.  have to have firm standards.  should have at least 1/3 incentives going back to states to invest in efficiency.  
kz: RGGI is terrific - good leadership from gov.  happened because bush admin wouldn't take climate change seriously. PACs, lobbyists have watered down national standards in waxman-markey, and now it's stalled in the senate.  good that we're leading regionally.  citizens have to say we need this, it's a crisis, have to get it done.

pfeiffer: clarify.
cap: want a straight-up carbon tax rather than c&t.  gave away auctions because we needed the votes.  like it or not, reps from coal districts advocate for jobs in their districts.
coak: c&t was a good compromise.  important to give allowances to states as we move toward auctions.
kz: mike is right about carbon tax, but c&t is a massive giveaway.  $130M last year in lobbyist money.  people are investing, getting a return.  70% giveaway is crazy.  to get bill through, had to give away.  will fight from day 1 to take allowances away.
pags: europe pioneered system.  total giveaway didn't work; 70% a good compromise.  goal is reducing carbon emissions.  have to get down the road, make realistic compromises.  have learned from european experience.  favor cap&trade because that's the internationally accepted system.

BU sr to kz: green issues see delays - burden falling on future generations than if we start now, work in smaller chunks.  for pushing things back given economic situation?
kz: not for pushing it back.  thru green energy, clean jobs can get economic development.  you are at risk of growing up in climate in crisis.  we all have to do more.  changing 1 light bulb takes 600,000 cars off the road.  (really??)  big diff in this race: i'm the only person who's been a movement leader.  citizens have to join with enviro leadership to create a new movement.  need a citizen movement.  i've done that - i know how to build citizen movements.  will bring together leaders, citizens to strategize on how to get this done.  can be done, but have to raise alarm bells.
pags: now have 84% fossil fuels.  like waxman-markey # of 40% emissions.  have to start now - can't wait. 4 ways. efficiency (via technology); education; renewable sources.  have to set goal, start now.
cap: not for waiting for anything.  at the same time, job is to do as best as I can to push ball as far down the field as i can.  started enviro mvt in my generation; still at the beginning.  reality is, whatever we do, you'll have to pick up on this and other issues.  
coak: we are behind. should've started yesterday, and didn't.  we began in our generation, but dropped the ball. 1980s - huge cars when gas prices dropped.  big mistake is that people won't take climate change seriously.  people are back-burnering it.  need every minute to get solutions.  

braude: what is your person vehicle
cap, coak: ford escape
kz: 15 year old toyota wagon
pags: hybrid lexus, 10year old lexus.

daley: greenest personal habit.
coak: made real effort in campaign to be green - recycle, more email than paper, work with landlord to cut down on water bottles.  personally, recycle in medford, put composter in back yard this year.  more conscious than in the past.  living in mystic river watershed, realize it takes everybody.
kz: listen to 7-year-old daughter.  recycle, try to be efficient (turning lights off), campaign is carbon-neutral - hybrid car for campaign, bought carbon offsets.  city year helped start recycling program in boston - piloted in JP with mayor flynn.  now going for 20 years in boston.
pags: recycle, compost, radiant heat, paperless in campaign, recycling.  important to support businesses that take energy off the grid.  education: when we grew up, we were not educated about this - our kids understand this.
cap: everything i can do.  recycling for years.  light bulbs, setback thermometers (?), but inefficient heating boilers in home (not enough $ to fix).  no campaign car.

pfeiffer to cap: foxwoods is despised by enviros - needed tons of new infrastructure.  if destination casinos come to MA, what to do about enviro impact?
cap: building codes.  if they have casinos, i'm not for them in the middle of nowhere. have them in developed places for those reasons, and should be attracting people who are already here.  
coak: on any new development in MA, lege should look at enviro impact. important that MA have smart growth for any new development.  
kz: one of many reasons why i oppose casinos in MA.  also creates $3 in costs for $1 of revenue; not good jobs.  casino industry is one of the only industries that is not nationally regulated.  need national casino regulatory commission.  so we could use fed enviro law to stop casinos.  but $250M from gambling industry to avoid regulation.
pags: reluctantly support casinos for jobs. build them in mixed-use area to avoid enviro impact.  

BU sr (sidney lupkin?) to coak: violators see enviro fines as cost of doing business.  how do we do a better job?
coak: took this very seriously in AG's office.  reinvigorated enviro crimes strike force.  seek civil penalties when appropriate.  have targeted worst offenders for criminal violations.  when you send a message that you'll pay a cost, you will hopefully change behavior.  try to expose criminal violators to jail time.  DEP has enforcement authority re smaller violations.  staffing for enviro police has been subject to budget cuts.  has to be a gov priority, but tough when funds are tight.
kz: have to do a better job via higher fees, greater penalties, stronger enforcement. also, citizen power - transparency, put all violators in internet, in newspapers.  need to reward good behavior, punish bad behavior by changing buying patterns.
pags: beef up enforcement, resources; higher penalties; criminal penalties.  enforce all the way up and down.
cap: organization, publication.  don't sit around waiting. as mayor, created own enviro strike force.  we stopped illegal dumping in somerville. have to prioritize. don't have to go after everybody.  first line is prevention; last is enforcement.

daley: energy efficiency.  know that MA programs save $3 for every $1 invested.  support a 1/3 efficiency requirement for electric utilities, like gas companies have?
kz: mckinsey study showed better efficiency leads to 23% reduction. should have same system for electric utilities.  don't know if 1/3 is right #, but should have a standard.  reward solar panels, weatherizing homes - rebates, and you should get the $ instead of the utils.
pags: yes, would have the standard.  not sure of the exact #.  couple with education, smart grid.
cap: yes - used to have similar programs.  yes for anyone in energy field.  individuals should be encouraged.  not just through util cos.
coak: yes - as well as smart metering and other consumer behavior.  

pfeiffer to pags: enviro justice.  tends to be lower income communities where you find transfer stations etc.  but it's better to concentrate polluters.  how would you balance need to treat communities fairly with need to concentrate?
pags: have to have enviro justice.  gov has to look at sites; need some state and fed oversight.  concentration: tough thing - like military bases.  independent commission to balance out locations?
cap: in the 11 years, no enviro injustice in my district - i wouldn't stand for it.  we cleaned up the affected areas.  enviros tend to forget about this issue. if burden is reasonably spread out, it's fair thing to do.  local opposition killed idea for recycling plant in somerville that cap backed.
coak: accepting concept of enviro justice is a step forward. don't find a lot of support. we will have waste ... a technological challenge.
kz: have worked in communities of color, low-income my whole life.  side with enviro justice. worked with van jones, majora carter. finally leaders of color and enviro movement are working together. helped to build a coalition for green jobs. i have a track record on this.

BU sr to cap: support heavy taxes on imports that did not sign a copenhagen-type agreement re emissions?
cap: yes. good policy.  if we sign on and then don't penalize other countries, we put ourselves at a disadvantage.
coak: yes.
kz: agree with mike. an easy yes.  problem is in congress - should have gotten climate change done by now.  great leadership from kerry, markey.  special interests slowing it down.  would help encourage us to sign it.  obama struck great deal with president of china.  
pags: need multilateral approach.  have to get house in order here; europe's already done it; #1 polluter in the world is china.  we have to make their products more expensive.  carrots and sticks.

daley to kz: furry animal question.  fishermen, beach goers see enviro protections as out of whack.  seal populations have exploded; fishermen complain that they eat too many fish.  taking over beaches.  if it's proven that seals harm economy or beaches, reduce protections?
kz: daughter would never forgive me.  answer is no.  have to find right balance - protect fishing industry, but enviro protections are there for a reason.   believe in strong enviro enforcement.  i'm for seals.
pags: maybe bring sharks in.  :-)  could not consider unless a gigantic problem.  have to manage fishing beds, but unless seals are crisis, don't support.
cap: not at crisis stage - but fishermen are an endangered species.  answer is not yet, but if it's negatively impacting fishing industry or tourism, have to consider it, as long as seals are not endangered.  balance has to understand that real people are involved here.
coak: agree that it's all about balance.  we share planet.  guess is that seal population is out of control because something else is out of whack.  we have thrown environment out of whack.  population control for certain mammals e.g. coyotes is appropriate.

braude: anything any of your opponents said that is wrongheaded/dangerous?
kz: if you really want to be a reformer, shouldn't take PAC/lobbyist $ , and doing fundraisers with them.
cap: does that include lobbyist for sierra club?
kz: yes

pfeiffer: who would come close to enviro hero?
cap: john audubon? haven't got a clue. birds wouldn't sit still to be painted.
coak: jim milkey - head of AG enviro division when she came in.  made argument in Mass v. EPA.  taught me a lot.  now app ct judge in MA.
kz: rachel carson (silent spring author), al gore - heroic work in raising alarm bells.
pags: wrote down al gore (so no one could claim copying).

final q BU sr to pags: public transit - how do you get people to leave cars at home?
pags: have to improve mass transit dramatically.  have underinvested in it.  d'alessandro report shows underinvestment.  in other countries, have invested heavily in mass transit, and it works.  need to fix.
cap: light rail, commuter rail are keys. have to expand.  have to stop complaining about subsidies - it's worth it.  tried to get money in cap&trade.
coak: europe has good system of rail, buses.  we went a different way.  people love their cars, and we haven't supplied infrastructure. money has to go in including south coast rail.  fed, state investment.
kz: japan has incredible bullet train. dukakis great leader on this.  should listen to him on rail.  cap is right - should subsidize it.  could work here, if we had strategy around it.

pop quiz: carbon sequestration
coak: related to clean coal.  problem is that it's expensive, haven't figured it out yet.
smart grid:
cap: ability to move electricity more efficiently.
kz: connecting our entire electrical system to improve efficiency.

closing stmt:
kz: put out comprehensive clean energy program on website today.  i am the only movement leader on this stage.  we need a citizen movement to say climate change is a crisis.  have to get voice of the people in.  i know how to do that.  join me in a cause to reclaim our environment for our state, country, world.
pags: got into race because we are facing several crises that affect our children.  enviro, jobs, health care.  my record is solving problems on the ground, job by job, business by business.  have worked with mspcc for 10 years.  built many businesses from ground up.  25 years on the ground experience.
coak: has to be high priority issue.  grew up in berkshire county - first DC experience was on PCBs with silvio conte.  climate has to be a priority.  have spent time as AG being educated.
cap: important for everyone to educate us. we can't be on top of all these things.  but you need someone in DC who is #1 your friend, #2 helping you translate your desires goals into action, you're doomed to failure.  failure not an option.  climate bill we have is barely good enough.  may have to accept half a loaf.  might have to accept it, and then take the next step.  too important, have to be realistic, the way washington works.

Jim Aloisi, who recently stepped down as MA secretary of transportation, put out the call for a coalition of activists and progressives to fix transportation. In our podcast today, he said that feds from Pres. Obama down are ready, but we need to act and do so now.

The podcast appears after the jump.Click its arrow to play.  

"The days of highway expansion in Massachusetts are over," declared Aliosi. Now is the time to act and particularly to level the playing field by developing passenger rail and public transit.

He ticked off such benefits as sparking industrial development and job creation, improved public health and safety, and increased energy security. He figures that the federal government under President Barack Obama is ripe for aiding just such development. What we need here is a coalition of the affected group in all those areas, including transit specific, health, our legislative and executive branch leaders, energy and more.

We discussed some of the key issues in his 12-page exit letter he sent to Gov. Deval Patrick. These include funding rail projects, getting the MBTA solvent, shaking votes and funding from the legislature to enable transportation improvements, and making multi-modal transit practical for all of us.

Aloisi is not shy about proposing innovations. He's a proponent for VMT (vehicle miles traveled) payments, as proven in other states. That is big here, where the legislature is frightened of raising the gas tax to pay for existing highway needs, much less 21st Century problems. He also talked about the  leadership and support he had from Lt. Gov. Tim Murry on making commuter and freight rail real and viable for us.

He calls for courage and leadership. Those should be on the part of the transportation and other activists he worked with and hoped to empower as secretary. Also that would be our governor, lieutenant governor and a cadre of state and U.S. legislators who are champions of these goals. He also named commonwealth mayors who already fight for improved transit and equitable funding. He says that the public really hasn't been broadly sold on this shift, but that they are hungry for such change and for the leadership to get us there.

We dealt with funding issues, which are at the core of many of our transit woes here. He has no patience with what he calls the gimmicks, like refinancing unmanageable T debt. He calls that delaying the day of reckoning and hiding the problem so the the public isn't aware of it and our lawmakers don't have to deal with it. Instead, he said there needs to be a restructuring of that debt (including relief of the $2 billion Big Dig portion laid on the T, with that VMT and some combination of sales-tax allocation to make the system workable).

He calls for public pressure and now, not in five or two years. Listen in as he talks about what has to be done. Many progressives can bring these issues to their own organizations and be part of that catalyzing coalition he envisions.

Faced with declining revenues, cuts to local aid and rising costs, many Massachusetts towns are increasing hotel and meals taxes as well as overriding Proposition 2 1/2 to raise property taxes.

In Rockland, residents voted 2-1 in favor of a Proposition 2 1/2 override to build an $86 million high school. Marilyn Werkheiser, a member of the Rockland School Committee, told the Boston Globe that people are willing to invest in the future of their town. referring to the weak economy.

“I think people really understand the need to do these things [increase taxes] to make our town better.’’

At town meetings in Hudson, Wellesley and Bellmont, voters raised meals taxes. Town officials in Hudson said the .75 percent increase on restaurants would save town jobs. While some said that any increase in taxes would be unfair to restaurants, others noted that a .75 percent increase would mean just 8 cent more on a $10 check.

Below is a list of towns that have passed meals and/or hotel taxes: AMHERST, ANDOVER, AUBURN,  BEDFORD, BLANDFORD, BOSTON, BREWSTER, BROOKLINE, CAMBRIDGE, CHELMSFORD, CHICOPEE, DARTMOUTH, DEERFIELD, DUDLEY, EASTON, EVERETT, FRAMINGHAM, FRANKLIN, GILL, HADLEY, HATFIELD, MEDFORD, MELROSE, MILLIS, MILTON, NANTUCKET, NORTH, ATTLEBOROUGH, NORTH READING, NORTHAMPTON, ORANGE, PALMER, PLAINVILLE, RAYNHAM, REHOBOTH, SAUGUS, SHREWSBURY, SOMERVILLE, SOUTHBRIDGE, SPRINGFIELD, STURBRIDGE, SUNDERLAND, TAUNTON, TYNGSBOROUGH, WEBSTER, WELLFLEET, WEST BOYLSTON, WEST SPRINGFIELD, WINTHROP WORCESTER.

Cross-posted on ONE Massachusetts.

There are two articles in the Boston Globe today, dealing with very different subjects but absolutely related, that we wanted to call your attention to.

First up: Budget Cuts will Imperil State's Poor:

The state estimates that the children of 9,100 families with parents so severely disabled that they qualify for federal Supplemental Security Income benefits will lose their state cash assistance as a result of the $600 million in budget cuts that Governor Deval Patrick announced late last month.

And second, Disclose who benefits from special tax breaks:

A group of lawmakers wants to revive a proposed requirement under which state officials who administer so-called refundable tax breaks would have to identify the recipients, the number of jobs created, and the average salaries of those jobs. The rule is wise and well worth adopting.

Last summer, we wrote to update you on a measure in the budget that we, and a group of other legislators, have been pushing - a transparency provision which would require state agencies that administer refundable tax credits to report annually the names of recipients, the size of the credits, and the number of jobs produced, providing us with the information we need to effectively manage the public's money and a measure of accountability as to the cost effectiveness of tax credits.

At a time of extreme budget cuts, this provision is even more important. Tens of millions of dollars go out in the form of refundable tax credits every year - and yet legislators, and the public, have no idea where the money is going or what effect it's having.

How can we cut services, like those detailed in the first Globe article, to below the bone and still refuse to even look at the impact and effectiveness of the money we spend on tax credits?

During budget deliberations this year, we had many discussions on raising revenue. But it's also important that we make sure we know how that revenue is being spent, particularly when it comes to tax breaks for corporations. These tax breaks might be effective; they might not. The truth is that right now, we simply don't know.

We've spent the last few months talking to our colleagues, and we know there is support among many of them for tax credit transparency. But if this proposal isn't brought up for a vote, then that support doesn't matter. The Legislature's last formal session of the year is tomorrow.

If you agree with us on this issue, we urge you to please contact your legislators and ask for their support. Then ask them to go a step further, and let House and Senate leadership know that this issue is important to them and they'd like to see it come up for a vote.

Sincerely,

Senator Jamie Eldridge & Representative Carl Sciortino

The Massachusetts Inspector General Gregory Sullivan was a guest at today's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meeting in Malden.  The Board was again discussing the events leading to the granting of a charter for the proposed Gloucester Community Arts Charter School. In addition to Secretary Paul Reville's email, which in crystal clear language lays out the political reasons for granting the charter despite the weakness of the application, serious questions have been raised (some of which are discussed here) regarding how a state agency entrusted by the Legislature with authority to spend several million dollars to open new schools carried out their responsibilities - that is why the Inspector General is now involved.

Inspector General Sullivan stated that he was attending the meeting because it was his understanding the full Board was not aware of the investigation.  This was confirmed during the discussion: at Monday night's special Board meeting to discuss the Gloucester charter, Chair Maura Banta was aware of the investigation, but not all Board members had been informed.  

In response to questioning, Sullivan recommended that the Board not make any decisions regarding the charter at this time.  Board member Kaplan moved to table discussion for a month pending completion of the investigation.  She and board member Chernow were the only two who voted to suspened the BESE discussion.

Chair Banta and other Board members cited "Gloucester's need for closure", in stark contrast to the testimony delivered by several Gloucester community members who indicated their willingness to continue the challenges to the manner in which this charter was granted.  The Board then voted 8-2 not to revoke the charter.

Dear BMG bloggers and readers:

Yesterday, I announced my candidacy for State Representative in the Fourth Suffolk District, including all of South Boston and the Upham's Corner and Harbor Point neighborhoods of Dorchester. The Democratic Primary will be in September of 2010 with the General Election in November of 2010.

I look forward to engaging you in respectful debate about progressive issues in the months that follow.  Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are interested in helping with my campaign.  My contact information is as follows:

Committee to Elect Michael McGee
PO Box 52356
Boston, MA 02205
Phone: (617) 752-1832
E-Mail: CommitteeForMcGee@gmail.com
Website: www.michaelmcgee.org

Below is my press release:  
"I am running for State Representative for the Fourth District of Suffolk County.  I am excited about the opportunity to represent you, to work alongside you, and to work for you in our neighborhood and on Beacon Hill.  I love our neighborhood and I can also see its potential for being even better than it is today. We face real challenges in our neighborhood and I want to be an advocate for our concerns on Beacon Hill. Over the next few months, I will be out in the neighborhood of South Boston, Harbor Point, and Upham's Corner. I will meet many of you and I am looking forward to hearing your concerns and ideas.

I live on East Broadway in South Boston.  I am a graduate of Boston College High School, Trinity College, and New England School of Law.  I am an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP on Summer Street in South Boston.  I am a neighborhood activist and proud volunteer, working with groups such as the South Boston Neighborhood House, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, the Paraclete Foundation, the West Broadway Neighborhood Association, the South Boston Arts & Cultural Center, a West Broadway Revitalization group, South Boston Grows, and most recently as a coach in our South Boston Youth Football program. I am a Democrat and I proudly represented Ward 6 at the Democratic State Convention. My local activism has taught me that much can be accomplished if you are willing to roll up your sleeves and go to work. That is what I have been doing for our neighborhood for years as a volunteer--organizing neighbors, pressuring elected officials, planting trees, raising money, mentoring kids--all to make our neighborhood better for all of us. As your State Representative, I'll work just as hard as the advocate for our community.

Whether you have lived in South Boston or Dorchester your whole life, or you just moved here in the past few years, we all have a stake in our neighborhood.  We all share the same concerns. We want excellent schools to send our kids to right here in the neighborhood, a lively and growing local economy, good public transportation, and safe and clean streets. Our shared concerns will be my priorities.

I look forward to the campaign and to talking to you more about the issues that face us all.

Thank you."

Best regards,

Mike McGee

Kyle Cheney, State House News Service has the story:

When he first heard a plea to protect circus elephants around 2001, Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, said he thought it was a "crazy type of left-wing" effort.

But Hedlund, at a Monday press conference, said he found himself captivated by what he heard - that elephants are routinely and violently clobbered by their trainers, chained and confined to small, concrete pens and severed from their natural clans, which can cause psychological trauma.

Wielding a "bull hook" - a long, heavy instrument affixed with a sharp, curved metal hook - Hedlund took aim at the claims by circus officials that such tools are used merely as guides to tame elephants.

"Our mindset as a society has really evolved beyond this 19th-century mentality where we would strip animals from the wild... and force them to do acts that are not natural to them for the benefit of a viewing audience," he said.

Hedlund is the sponsor of legislation (S 1870) that would prohibit the use of a bull hook on elephants in traveling circuses that pass through Massachusetts.

WBZ's Jonathan Elias offered a fairly pitiful attempt at parody in his coverage of the event.

I used to like the elephant acts at the circus, but I don't like them any more now that I have seen this:

Co-sponsors of the bill deserve a hearty round of applause, and underline the bi-partisan support for this measure.

The 13 co-sponsors of the bill include Sens. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham; Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester; Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford; and Susan Tucker, D-Andover; and Reps. Lida Harkins, D-Needham; John Fresolo, D-Worcester; Anne Gobi, D-Spencer; and Bruce Ayers, D-Quincy.

Cruelty to animals injures all of us.

I just saw Alan Khazei's new ad on the teevee. A lot of it looked familiar -- and, as it turns out, a brief review reveals that it uses a fair amount of video footage from his first ad. There's nothing wrong with that -- I actually think it's a much better ad, essentially taking the good advice first offered by Khazei supporter FrankSkeffington to pitch City Year as an inspiring story of service to community and country rather than as a jobs program. See for yourself.

Original ad:New ad:

I attended Khazei's speech at Harvard today where he announced his detailed plan for Afghanistan and the War on Terror.   Although the other candidates have statements out about the Afghanistan, none of the other three candidates even come close to Khazei in terms of the level of detail and knowledge of the issues.
(On their websites, Capuano and Pagliuca each have about 3 generic paragraphs saying nothing new or intersting, and Coakley has but a couple decent points...)

Now, I know he's not always the most fiery speaker ever, but you need to give Alan credit for his content.  Give his speech a read, it's worth the time - it's intelligent and very thorough.  While not easily summarized into a couple clean and simple bullet points, his 10-point plan actually presents a plan and tells voters what they'll actually be getting if they elect Alan as the next U.S. Senator.  And his speech demonstrated that his background in the non-profit sector has really honed his understanding (and solving) of social issues and social problems, which can be applied to a huge variety of issues.  

If this is the kind of well thought out analysis he's churning out on the campaign trail, instead of empty promises and generic statements that follow the party line, I can only imagine how great a U.S. Senator he'll be. I'm sold.

The Globe reports the following:

Cambridge police gave state Senator Anthony Galluccio a ride home early the morning of Oct. 4 when a gas station attendant called 911 and said he feared the lawmaker was "too intoxicated to drive," according to a police report made public today. Thirteen hours later Galluccio was behind the wheel and fleeing the scene of a crash after rear-ending a minivan and hurting a 13-year-old boy.

Good Lord.  So, was Galluccio drunk when he rear-ended the van?  Or was he sober, but so terrified that the police, having driven him home drunk only a few hours earlier, would throw the book at him, that he drove away?

It doesn't matter.  Leaving the scene of an accident is a serious offense; driving to a restaurant that closes at 1 a.m. and ending up so drunk that your friend has to drive you home at 4:30 a.m. (what happened to those three and a half hours, anyway?) shows, at best, questionable judgment for any 42-year-old, to say nothing of a state Senator.  Add to that Galluccio's history of drinking and driving, and, well ...

I hope Galluccio gets help for what seems to me to be a significant problem with alcohol and driving.  He needs to leave the Senate in order to focus on that -- it's more important to him, and to the public.  He is very fortunate that, so far, he has not seriously injured anyone, though the extent of the harm to the 13-year-old he injured last month appears to be unclear.  He should do something about this before his luck runs out.

David brought up a good point over here regarding serving one's constituents.  Senator Kennedy's propensity to provide the very best constituent services has been talked about in the press and on this blog. His office responded to all queries in a timely manner and did so with zeal.

One of the things that has bothered me throughout this past week's debate (confusion) on health care, is the Coakley's campaign inability to answer questions and/or provide responses to people looking for answers and how it so greatly contrasts with all the other candidates running for the seat.

Her campaign failed on three different fronts:  
1. Press and Media outlets -- Is Martha Coakley's failure to respond to David when asked a question (if you received an answer, please let us know), coupled with her failure to want to answer Alison King on NECN, a sign that she doesn't take seriously a Senator's role in responding to constituents? Even if she had said she needed time to answer the question and got back to people, that would be fine. She didn't do that.  This was not a gotcha question that doesn't have an answer. It was a perfectly valid question regarding the very issue Senator Kennedy fought most of his adult life in the Senate on.

Here is the quote which I still find fascinating to read:

KING: If you're in the Senate, and this comes before you and the amendment's in the bill, you will vote it down because you think it's more important to protect the abortion issue than the health care reform issue?

COAKLEY: Alison,  I'm not going to answer that question. I am not saying, you know, if I'm on the bridge and this is the only choice I have that, that you know, I'd say we're not going to be there.

2. Grassroots outreach / engage the blogsphere -- Every campaign has done it except the front-running Coakley campaign. Why? Why not? It is beyond me that a campaign running for statewide office would not engage the universe of activist, politico's, elected officials and press types that read BMG every day. It is a failure of her campaign thus far.

I will put this in direct contrast to Mike Capuano who posted here last week:

I understand that some may be confused after reading recent media reports on health care reform. ?I want to set the record straight and there is no better way of doing that than by communicating directly with you.

or Alan Khazei who also posted here recently.

3. Direct question from a constituent -- No follow up to a call or an email to the campaign asking for clarification on her Health care position.

I called and emailed the campaign during last week's craziness to see if I could get a clear answer. Why shouldn't I try? We have campaigns putting out video statements (Khazei), commercials (Pagliuca) and my candidate coming to BMG to make sure the record was straight (Capuano), but crickets from the AG. To me that silence speaks volumes on how she will lead, or not lead as the case may be.  

Clearly, IMO the Coakley campaign doesn't understand what constituent services are and how to provide them to people looking for answers.  

Why is it important? Whomever wins will follow in the footsteps of the standard bearer for delivering constituent services to Massachusetts residents. From a Globe article around the time of his death:

But out of the spotlight and behind the scenes, his constituents say, the senior senator and his staff have cut through red tape to change countless individual lives, advocating for even the narrowest personal needs with a ferocity and attention to detail that still inspires awe in those on the receiving end decades later." -Jenna Russell (Boston Globe, Legions he aided now praise Kennedy Ordinary people recall his extraordinary help. Jenna Russell, 5/23/08).

For me this is one of the areas where Mike Capuano has a head start and distinct advantage over Martha Coakley and the rest of the pack.  I just noticed this video that came out on Boston.com, check it out. It is easy to like Mike Capuano and his honesty.  Also, easy to see how he feels about constituent services in this video. He mentions that you don't know what you are made of until you get the call on a Friday at 5pm from a Senior who is running out of oil. Will Martha call them back?

I support Mike Capuano for Senate.  

Politicians beware: student activism is back, and here at Harvard we're starting a student revolution to STOP STUPAK.

I am a freshman at Harvard University, where, despite the presence of enormous individual student ambition and drive, it's pretty much impossible to incite enthusiasm from any large-ish group about anything besides the upcoming exam in Social Analysis 10.  When only about twenty people show up to watch candidates debate for the Massachusetts Senate seat left vacant by Ted Kennedy, it's hard to imagine mobilizing students to spend time and energy making their voices and anger heard over the recent Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the House healthcare bill (or even provoking their anger in the first place).  Don't get me wrong, students here are certainly engaged beyond their academics in just about every extracurricular pursuit imaginable, but because of the student body's diversity of passions, it's hard to pique broad interest for one cause.

So, you can imagine my surprise when, after receiving an email message from Gina Glantz and Kim Gandy (two fellows at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics and experienced political and advocacy aficionados), I showed up to a "Stop Stupak Emergency Planning Meeting" to find a room packed with students: law students, humanities graduate students, graduate government school students, college students, and, notably, a large contingent of freshmen.  "Yes!" I thought. "Students care about reproductive health care, women's right to choose, and the knowledge that women's health care is health care.  We understand that no one plans an unplanned pregnancy, something that both private and public insurance plans will be forced to cast aside if the Stupak amendment makes it into the final version of the healthcare bill. "

 
As Gina Glantz, Chair of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and longtime field organizer, gave an introduction and set up the meeting's format, the bodies in the room and the energy buzzing in the air increased.  Kim Gandy, former president of NOW, sat beside her, having postponed a trip in order to help organize a powerful student movement that will pressure Congress to protect coverage for comprehensive health care.

The first steps in any advocacy movement are to understand the problem, decide what needs to be change, and establish goals to best effect that change.  We reviewed Planned Parenthood Action Fund's thorough and accessible run-down of the Stupak amendment and what it does to women's health care coverage, and went over the implications the amendment might have as the healthcare bill progresses to the Senate.  Gandy emphasized that the Stupak amendment goes beyond the compromise that CAPP established, which was to prohibit federal funding for abortion.  The Stupak amendment would, in addition, restrict women's access to PRIVATE abortion coverage, affecting how we spend our own money out of our own pockets.
We established two primary goals in our advocacy:

1) Ensure that the Stupak amendment doesn't end up in the final health care bill
2) Mobilize college students at Harvard and beyond to start a movement advocating for women's health care, reproductive rights, etc.

Our immediate priority is to convince the Senate to bring a bill to the floor that doesn't include Stupak or anything like it.  If the House and Senate bills differ (which they doubtless will), both bills will go to the Conference Committee, where the committee will mix and match the two bills and come up with a compromise.  The Conference Committee will be our next target, and we need to ensure that Stupak is stripped from this final bill.

Next, Glantz presented an acronym for urgent organization and planning: UNLOCK (Urgency, Need to plan quickly, Lead and leverage, Organize organize organize, Count real numbers, Kill Stupak Victory).  Gandy then briefed us on the Senate, emphasizing that we must focus pressure on states with an anti-choice democrat or a pro-choice democrat in a state that's pro-life (Louisiana, for example).  These states (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Maine, Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Missouri) are essential in the fight to stop Stupak.

ACTION: if you are from one of these states, or know anyone from these states, it is imperative that you call your senator and urge him or her to oppose any bill that limits abortion funding more than it already has been from the CAPPS compromise.

So what action are we planning to STOP STUPAK at Harvard?

In conjunction with the upcoming national day of action this Wednesday, November 18th, we're planning a STUDENTS STOP STUPAK rally at the Harvard Square T-stop at rush hour.  We'll hold coat hangers, signs, and circulate petitions as commuters and students filter through the Boston subway system.  We'll get media attention, and force our representatives to understand that students and voters care and are angry.  

Please join us!
If you are a student, feel free to adopt our plan of action and join us this Wednesday with a protest of your own.  

If you are in or near the Boston area, come to the Harvard Square T-stop between 3:30 and 5:30 PM to show your outrage and stand up for women's reproductive rights.  

Follow Stopstupaknow on twitter for updates.
Join our facebook group to garner support for Students Stop Stupak.
Check out our website and get ready for a student revolution to STOP STUPAK NOW.
Stay tuned for more action alerts and ideas, and in the meantime, sign the petition to STOP STUPAK.

Questions? Ideas for student stopping Stupak?  Leave a comment below.

Crossposted on Amplify