End to backroom deals? Time for change!

As a voter, do you find the arrogance of Beacon Hill offensive?

Like this -

On Monday, Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Revere Democrat who organized the SECRET CLOSED DOOR briefing, told the News Service the session was closed TO THE PUBLIC so state reps would "feel comfortable to ask any questions without having any type of criticism'' and surely at the request of gambling interests who can make undisputed wild promises that are unsubstantiated and never be held accountable.

From: Beacon Hill: Democracy dies at gambling interests' request

Huh? Elected officials aren't adults? Maybe Kathi-Anne isn't.

Legislation was crafted behind closed doors, in secret meetings, excluding the public and the media.

Isn't it time for transparency?

There are provisions within the current expanded gambling proposal that were written to genuflect to the Gambling Industry. Slot Barns employees as ESSENTIAL? Only if you genuflect!

FREE ALCOHOL? Not every state has it. Beacon Hill simply can't do enough for the Gambling Industry!

Extending FREE ALCOHOL to 'level the playing field' makes each of us innocent targets of the Gambling Industry to simply keep Gambling Addicts playing and to line their pockets, at the expense of those being killed by drunks.

Folks, Get a grip!

Did you find Senator Rosenberg's shenanigans suspect?

Do you have a problem with Senator Rosenberg's comment:
Senator Stan Rosenberg: “What lobbyists and interest groups buy is access’’

Below is a BEGINNING - merely a beginning that needs to be accompanied with some serious ETHICS REFORM to restore public confidence.

And, oh! By the way - maybe a 5 year self-exclusion for lawmakers might make sense.

Whose government is this, anyway?

Open government advocates push meeting, public record reforms
By David Riley
gatehouse news service

BOSTON —
Government transparency advocates hope backroom casino talks and recent Beacon Hill scandals will lend new momentum to legislation that would toughen open meeting and public record laws this year.

Supporters especially hope to pass one of several bills to finally end the Legislature’s self-granted exemption from the state’s Open Meeting Law.

“They’re doing the people’s business,” said Robert Ambrogi, an attorney and executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association. Other pending legislation would:

Make public records easier to obtain electronically and at a lower cost.

Give the state’s supervisor of public records greater authority.

Impose stiffer penalties for violating the Open Meeting Law.

Some legislators said they see a need for such measures as much as ever.

“I think that with the casino debate, we saw exactly what behind-the-door politics is all about in Massachusetts,” said state Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica.

One example reformists cite is when State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, proposed an amendment for a five-year ban on former lawmakers taking jobs in the casino industry during Senate debate on the bill
After fellow legislators slammed the idea, senators met in a closed-door caucus before emerging to pass a one-year limit instead. Eldridge said changes to the amendment should have been hashed out publicly.

The Legislature passed several changes to the Open Meeting Law that went into effect a year ago. The updates set new guidelines for government boards to post agendas and keep minutes, and shifted enforcement of the law from district attorneys to the attorney general.

Some town and city officials complained the changes were unclear, costly or both.
Moving enforcement to Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office was a good move that has raised the law’s profile, as well as public awareness of violations, Ambrogi said.

In one recent ruling, the attorney general had found that the Brockton Water Commission violated the state Open Meeting Law when the board met behind closed doors in August 2010 amid the water-billing crisis.

And Coakley announced this month that her office had created a searchable database of all its rulings on investigations into Open Meeting Law violation complaints.

But reformists want more. In cases of apparently intentional violations, a bill sponsored by Rep. Anthony Cabral, D-New Bedford, would allow civil fines not only against a public board, but individual members, up to $200 per violation. It would also allow citizens who file court actions to enforce the Open Meeting Law to recover attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Recent scandals, including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi’s conviction on corruption charges, have raised new questions about why lawmakers should be above a law meant to discourage corruption, Ambrogi said.

“To me, that’s always seemed hypocritical,” he said. Several bills would end that exemption.

More than 20 newspapers endorsed many of these reforms, with backing from the Mass. Newspaper Publishers Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, the New England First Amendment Coalition and the New England Newspaper and Press Association.