From the Gloucester Daily Times:
Our view: There's no excuse for shameful secrecy of state budget talks
"The region's state representatives claim to do what their title implies — represent the people of their districts. But they obviously want we, the people, just to take their word for it, since they don't want us looking on as they make some of the most critical decisions of the year — how to spend the money they take from us in taxes. As documented by Statehouse reporter Edward Mason (The Times, Monday, May 5), House lawmakers have crafted the coming year's $28-billion budget largely out of public view. The real debate over spending occurred in private rooms, and even the orchestrated "debate" for public consumption has been taken off of television and moved only to the Internet. This may not break any law — the Legislature, even though it is obviously a governmental body, has conveniently exempted itself from the Open Meeting Law. But it remains a blatant violation of the spirit and principle of open government. As Common Cause Executive Director Pamela Wilmot told Mason, "The state budget allocates the ... public's resources. It's absolutely essential it be transparent from soup to nuts." There is, of course, no transparency in either soup or nuts at the Statehouse. The decisions are made out of public view, in a room off the House lobby manned by guards. There is eventually a public debate, but its outcome is never in doubt. The whole exercise is little more than a teleplay. This is a travesty, and what makes it even more shameful is that some North of Boston region representatives defend it. Rep. Barbara L'Italien, D-Andover, says it is the Legislature's "prerogative" to have more "internal" discussions. Clearly, it is not necessary to be in San Francisco, listening to presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, to find elitism. It is rampant at the Massachusetts Statehouse. Members of the Great and General Court must not be distracted by the little people watching them. Then there is James Eisenberg, an aide to Rep. Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, one of the Legislature's top budget officials. He says that having debates in private gives legislators a stronger voice and brings more order to what would otherwise be a chaotic process. If legislators want order and privacy, they should move to the private sector. This is supposed to be a democracy, where deliberations on how to spend public money are conducted in public. And a strong voice is what they all claim they will bring to the Statehouse if we will elect them. Why can't they demonstrate that strong voice in public? But this is the way it will remain, as long as the House remains overwhelmingly under the control of one party and there is no public outrage. If lawmakers thought they might actually lose their seats over this — yet another example of their obvious disdain for the public — those doors would open. If voters want change, they need to exercise their own prerogative — throwing out the defenders of this corrupt system."
