DOCSLIB.ORG

The Adoption of an Information Technology Open Standards Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Adoption of Technology Open
Standards Policy by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts

Case Study

Summary

This case discusses the adoption of an Information Technology (IT) Open Standards Policy by the Commonwealth of MA during the administration of Governor Mitt Romney. It details the political and administrative process of adopting and implementing an IT architecture to carry the Commonwealth forward into the 21st century and achieve operational, economic and political objectives. The political repercussions prompted an investigation by the State Auditor and the ensuing report provides important lessons in public management. Additionally, technological concepts and issues are explored in detail with consideration for their bearing on administrative and political functions.

Readers interested in public management will find that the case explores and explains the key IT procurement policy considerations of open standards, total cost of ownership, and key (and often misunderstood) distinctions between free/libre and open source commercial and proprietary software and the challenges of vendor lock-in. This case more specifically also exposes the student to more technical issues that they may encounter in public management settings such as the concept of open data, open data standards (XML),

This case was an honorable mention place winner in E-PARCC’s 2012-13 “Collaborative Public Management, Collaborative Governance, and Collaborative Problem Solving” teaching case and simulation competition. It was double-blind peer reviewed by a committee of academics and practitioners. It was written by Charles Schweik and Lucia N. Miller the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This case is intended for classroom discussion and is not intended to suggest either effective or ineffective handling of the situation depicted. It is brought to you by E-PARCC, part of the Maxwell School of Syracuse University’s Collaborative Governance Initiative, a subset of the Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC). This material may be copied as many times as needed as long as the authors are given full credit for their work.

the idea of systems interoperability, and perhaps most importantly, the concern and some of the issues surrounding digital data archival – one of the key challenges the public sector1 (and every sector) faces in this emerging era of paperless operations.

In concluding we stress that these IT concepts are more broadly applicable and in fact form the foundation of the new era of open government in the digital age. This is reflected in the Obama Administration Open Government Initiative and the corresponding federal mandate to establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. It is also borne in the so-called “Gov 2.0” ideas that recognize the power of government and technology combined as a platform for participatory democracy, problem solving, and innovation.

1

I (co-author Schweik) once had a discussion with a former National Science Foundation Program Officer who ran the Digital Government program for many years. Over dinner, I told him that I thought he should write a book; that by reading all the grants being submitted to his program, he had a better idea than almost anyone in the country what the key research needs were around information technology and government. I then asked him what he thought was the most pressing issue in the digital government area. Without hesitation, he responded that he thought digital archival of data was a really key issue that we, as a country, needed to work on.

Table of Contents

Pages

Case Narrative ……………………………………………………………………………………

Information Technology Explanations …………………………………………………
1-15 16-25

Detailed explanations of IT concepts commonly found in public sector settings and referenced in the narrative are provided at the end of the case. We wrote this case thinking that readers will flip back to these boxes when they are first referenced in the case text, but some readers who want to understand the case terminology, may want to consider reading these boxes first, and then read the entire case. These informational boxes, describe the following:

•

Box 1 Why an Agreed Upon Data Storage Format (an “Open Standard”) is Important for Digital Archiving ………………………………………………………… Box 2 The Concept of Open Standards ……………………………………………... Box 3 The Concept of Proprietary (or “Closed Source”) Software ……… Box 4 The Concept of Open Source Software ……………………………………. Box 5 How the Terms “Proprietary,” “Commercial,” “Open Source,” and “ Open Standards” Relate to Each Other ………………………………………………. Box 6 The Total Cost of Ownership in Software ………………………………………… Box 7 The Importance of Structured Data, XML, and Open Standards ………… Box 8 Short Summary of the Open Document Format (ODF) Standard …… Box 9 Short Summary of the Office Open OOXML Standard ……………………

17 18 19 20

••••

21-22 23 23-24 25

••••

25

References ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Teaching Notes ……………………………………………………………………………………….

26-27 28-34

Attachments (separate files)

[Note: We attach these appendices to be co-located with this case because we are concerned that over time, their URLs may change or they may be taken off the Web (a digital archive issue! This occurred in the time lapsed between the first draft and this final version.]

Attachment 1. From the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (www.mass.gov).

The Enterprise Open Standards Policy 1/13/2004. Note that this policy is still in effect as of February, 2013.

Attachment 2. The Office of the State Auditor’s Report on the Examination of the Information Technology Division’s Policy for Implementing the Open Document

Standard, No. 2006-0884-4T. While this entire report is relevant, four appendices are of particular interest for this case:
Appendix 1. Chronology of Events (p. 59) Appendix 2. Memorandum re Information Technology Policy 9/25/2003 (p. 61) Appendix 4. Cost Analysis 9/19/2005 (p. 63) Appendix 5. CIO Letter 8/23/2006 re adaptive technologies (p. 66)

Key Players in the Administration of Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts

Secretary of Administration and Finance

Eric Kriss worked with Romney at Bain Capital, served as campaign policy advisor, led transition team, then took A&F post and led IT Policy adoption
Bethann Pepoli succeeded Eric Kriss on an interim basis
Thomas Trimarco served during the State Audit

Chief Information Officer

Peter Quinn joined Eric Kriss as technology delivery systems expert and led IT Policy adoption
Louis Gutierrez succeeded Peter Quinn and served during State Audit

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight

Senator Marc Pacheco requested State Audit of IT Policy

State Auditor

Joseph DeNucci was responsible for the IT Policy audit

1

Introduction

The sun reflected brightly off the Statehouse dome on historic Beacon Hill in Boston. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was still riding the post-election high after handily defeating his rival in the November 2002 election. As a Republican governor in this Democratic stronghold, Romney took his victory as a green light from the electorate to pursue his free market economic policies, at least as far as the predominantly Democratic legislature would allow, and unleash the power of the marketplace. With a highly educated and technologically savvy workforce, Massachusetts had long been a hotbed of technological innovation. Recently, however, both the brainpower and companies were finding the West Coast more appealing, and the state was losing its competitive edge. Wishing to return the Commonwealth to its position of national and international technological prowess, Romney saw great opportunity in unlocking the creativity and innovation found in the multitude of institutions of higher education, established and startup information technology (IT) enterprises for which the Commonwealth was known. Along with higher education, the IT sector was one of the state’s greatest assets, and competition among its innovators was sure to be a boon to the economy. Technological innovation was the ticket to economic development in a state with a legacy of Yankee ingenuity.

Expertise in the Romney Administration

Governor Romney had found kindred spirits in his administration with Eric Kriss and Peter Quinn. Kriss cut his teeth in the financial world in 1983 as one of the founders of Bain Capital, now one of the largest private equity firms, and also well known to be one of the sources of Governor Romney’s wealth. Kriss honed his entrepreneurial and tech skills in the private sector where he gained experience with and an appreciation for the importance of Information Technology (IT) systems. He went into public service in the administration of Governor Weld, who preceded Romney, serving as both Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of Administration and Finance from 1991 to 1993, then returned to the private sector. In 2002, when Governor Romney’s first ran for office, Kriss served as a policy advisor, then led the transition team, and later took the post of Secretary of Administration and Finance, a key position in the Romney administration.

Peter Quinn, on the other hand, came to his position from Boston Financial Data Services where he had risen from Systems Officer to Chief Information Officer (CIO). His leadership in the analysis of technology delivery services and the resulting processes modifications were key to a 300% growth in five years. Quinn joined the Commonwealth IT Division in 2002 under Governor Romney as Commissioner and was responsible for overseeing 173 agencies in the Executive Branch as well as managing the Technology Bond Fund that served the three branches of government, two university systems, constitutional offices,

2

and 20 independent authorities. With the arrival of Eric Kriss, Peter Quinn’s position was renamed CIO.

IT Challenges

Key concepts: System integration, interoperability, data archiving, access, sharing, data archival and retrieval over time

Together, Eric Kriss and Peter Quinn were responsible for the technology needed for running the approximately 50,000 computers and information systems that served state offices, departments, and agencies across the Commonwealth. Both understood that an overhaul of the IT infrastructure was over due as use of technology had grown exponentially without an overarching plan. Challenges could be found at every level as agency budgets were managed autonomously, including technology purchases, with a resulting vast, out-of-date system of computers, software and other technologies spread across the Commonwealth bureaucracy of administrative offices, agencies, and schools. Kriss and Quinn saw an opportunity to design and implement a new IT architecture that would carry the Commonwealth forward into the 21st century and achieve operational, economic, and also political objectives.

Knowing Governor Romney’s entrepreneurial spirit and his wish to return the State of Massachusetts to national prominence in the technology sector, Kriss and Quinn wanted to position the state to lead the way and bring along the private sector in the process (Updegrove, 2006). With the rapid evolution of technology, operational challenges were presenting themselves in an ever-quickening fashion. Government budgets for technology had not kept pace with changes in the private sector, leaving agency equipment and software outmoded with little functional integration among agencies and branches. System integration was necessary to increase efficiency and to allow for interoperability and data sharing among various agencies and government sectors.

Without an overarching plan, there were different software packages, programs, databases, and computers with limited ability to communicate shared data.2 Duplication of data and functions was often needed to accomplish comparable tasks in different departments and agencies. Furthermore, older computers and proprietary software were no longer compatible with newer versions, making data transfer between systems difficult or impossible without duplication. Public records were stored in a variety of formats ranging from digital to paper, some no longer accessible because of technological changes. With each upgrade in proprietary software and operating systems, the Commonwealth risked losing access to more information. Furthermore, older operating systems were less secure than new ones and posed security issues. And, for a public entity, perhaps the most

2

For example, a state or local agency dealing with child abuse reports might want access to criminal records or domestic violence reports that might be maintained by a different agency.

3

troubling issue was that many digital records and data of historical importance were no longer accessible to constituents because of incompatibility issues between the older and newer hardware and software. Kriss and Quinn saw the idea of “open standards” as a ke concept for resolving some of these issues.

See Box 1 for an example of why agreed upon standards for data formatting (“open standards”) are important in digital archiving and ensuring access.

QUESTIONS FOR READER CONTEMPLATION OR DISCUSSION • What is perhaps the most important concern driving Kriss and Quinn's efforts? • Where in your experience have you encountered challenges with digital archiving? • What were some of the challenges given the existing IT infrastructure?

• What does “functional integration” and “interoperability” mean in the context of information technology?

• Why are functional integration and interoperability important not only to administrators but also to the public?
• Where have you seen duplication of data and functions? • When, in your experience with technology, have you run into challenges of interoperability? Have you encountered a situation where you could not read a digital file because you or an organization shifted to a new software?

• In what kinds of situations might public access to data – or lack of access – be an issue in public sector settings?

Announcing a New Information Technology
Procurement Policy

Key concepts: open standards, open data, open source, vendor lock in, proprietary software, interoperability

On September 25, 2003, the Commonwealth made an unprecedented move. In a memo from Eric Kriss, Secretary of Administration & Finance to his CIO Peter Quinn, the Commonwealth issued its Information Technology Policy outlining the adoption of open standards and open source software. Making it the first state in the nation, this move from proprietary to open standards and open source was both visionary and controversial and would frame the ensuing debate for years to come. Given Kriss’s responsibility for the state’s budget, the move was presented primarily as financial, with long-term savings and improved efficiency, however the political ramifications were widespread.

4

The Open Standards Policy

The Massachusetts Information Technology Policy was in effect an “open standards policy” (Attachment 1). In a memo to CIO Quinn, Kriss directed,

“Effective immediately, we will adopt, under the guidance of the Commonwealth’s Chief Information Officer Peter Quinn, a comprehensive Open Standards, Open Source policy for all future IT investments and operating expenditures.”

He further directed that new applications comply with this policy and existing applications undergo review for either “encapsulation” or migration to the new standards. Statewide implementation of the IT Policy promised to create a new architecture for all IT based on the idea of “open standards.” Standards were an innovation of the Industrial Revolution – consider, for example, the standardization of railroad track widths or light bulbs and sockets. They were (and are still) critical to the emergence of some very important innovations in information technology (see Box 2), but had not yet become predominant in some portions of the IT sector.3

The Idea of Vendor Lock-in

Proprietary or closed source software (see Box 3), for example, typically requires contracts and licenses that must be upgraded through the vendor to stay current with software improvements or new features. If and when a vendor decides it will no longer support a given platform or program version, often referred to as planned obsolescence, the customer is forced to decide whether to purchase new software that is supported by the firm or run compromised systems. This kind of path-dependency, is known as the “vendor lock-in” problem (Linux Information Project, 2006).

Kriss and Quinn knew that a state policy would also facilitate a move in the direction of open standards adoption in the private sector and would help to reduce Massachusetts’ problem of vendor lock-in. In instances where the Commonwealth adopted proprietary software solutions, it risked being locked in to that particular software vendor for support and subjected to upgrading when the software vendor decided to no longer support a particular earlier version of the software. By adopting an open standards policy, the Commonwealth would have the option to make a choice, in some IT circumstances, to stay with the same software package but change the vendor who supported the package.

They also believed that embracing an IT procurement policy grounded on open standards would spur further development and adoption of open source software (see Box 4),

3 A current example is the lack of a consistent standard in education for electronic transmission of transcripts. Although discussed for many years at all levels, K-16 and beyond, there is no consensus and remains a low priority.

5

potentially leading to a boon for Massachusetts economic development by generating competition for new and innovative commercial IT solutions4 and ultimately the creation of a seamless public IT architecture. (See Box 5 for a discussion of how proprietary, commercial, open source, and open standards relate to one another). This competition would also yield more products at (potentially) lower costs and to make it even more attractive, the products could be maintained and upgraded by other tech vendors without having to purchase and transition to a new product, thereby gaining a measure of “vendor independence” (Updegrove, 2008). Non-proprietary software would prove itself cost effective not only in the short-term implementation but also in the longer term operation and maintenance. (See Box 6 to learn more about Total Cost of Ownership). Kriss and Quinn had run cost-benefit comparisons to show that switching costs for transitioning to open standards and open source were lower than upgrading the current system with proprietary products (Attachment 2, Appendix 4).

Interoperability and Data Archival

Another compelling reason for the Commonwealth to push toward an IT procurement policy that embraced the idea of open standards is the long-term management of digital data. A concern was that some digital data being archived by the Commonwealth, over the long term, would be rendered unreadable if stored in a proprietary format that does not comply with an agreed upon open standard. A move toward a software procurement policy that encouraged open standards could help avoid this problem because of its underlying principle of “interoperability” – the ability of one software to read the data generated b other (sometimes earlier) software.

In short, to Kriss and Quinn, pushing forth the open source and open standards policy was not only a prudent fiscal choice addressing the vendor lock-in problem, but also a strategic move to a fundamentally democratic system facilitating economic developing in the IT sector, and, at the same time, building toward a more workable digital archive system. Massachusetts would be leading the way nationally.

QUESTIONS FOR READER CONTEMPLATION OR DISCUSSION

• Define, in your own words, the idea of “vendor lock-in” as it relates to information technology procurement.

• Define, in your own words, the concepts of “open standards,” “proprietary software,” “commercial software,” “closed source software,” and “open source software.”

4

For example, some universities have made a shift from a proprietary learning management system (e.g., Blackboard) to an open source one (e.g., Moodle). While Moodle is open source, there are a whole new set of firms that have emerged that are in business supporting Moodle. See http://moodle.com/partners/. This is an example of the kind of economic development Kriss and Quinn may have been envisioning. .

6

• Open source and open standards are often discussed together. Are they related?
Why or why not?

• Why was the IT Policy visionary? Why was it also controversial? • Identify the stakeholders who might object to the policy and propose reasons for their position. Who would likely be in favor and why?
• Why is open source an important consideration for IT procurement policy? What are advantages of a seamless proprietary system? Alternatively, in what circumstances might vendor lock-in be a problem?
• What are the economic, political, and social benefits of interoperability? Costs?

Adoption

Key concepts: open standards and open source per Mass ITD, Open Document Format The IT Division (ITD) formally adopted its new IT Policy on January 13, 2004 (Attachment 1). This became official with the online publication of the Enterprise Open Standards Policy, the IT Acquisition Policy, and the first version of the Enterprise Technical Reference Model. In that document, open standards were defined as

Specifications for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body. Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is an example of an open standard. Open standards imply that multiple vendors can compete directly based on the features and performance of their products. It also implies that the existing information technology solution is portable and that it can be removed and replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption (Mass ITD, 2004).

Recommended publications
  • 2006 ANNUAL REPORT 2006 Annual Report

    2006 ANNUAL REPORT 2006 Annual Report

    CHOOSING TO COMPETE 2006 ANNUAL REPORT 2006 Annual Report Pioneer’s Mission Founded in 1988, Pioneer Institute is a non-partisan public policy think tank committed to keeping Massachusetts economically competitive and to strengthening the core values of an open society. To inspire market-driven policy reforms, Pioneer promotes individual freedom and responsibility and limited, accountable government. The Institute has changed the intellectual climate in Massachusetts by commissioning timely and rigorous academic studies from leading scholars. Pioneer injects new ideas into the public debate through forums and lectures, transcripts, the media, and outreach to legislators, business groups and the general public. Pioneer’s Centers The Center for School Reform seeks to increase the educational options available to parents, drive system-wide reform, and ensure accountability in public education. The Center’s work builds on Pioneer’s legacy as a recognized leader in the charter public school movement, and as a champion of greater academic rigor in Massachusetts’ elementary and secondary schools. Current initiatives promote choice and competition, school-based management, and enhanced academic performance in public schools. The Shamie Center for Better Government seeks limited, accountable government by promoting competitive delivery of public services, elimination of unnecessary regulation, and a focus on core government functions. Current initiatives promote reform of public employee pension and health care systems and affordable, high-quality health care. The Center for Economic Opportunity seeks to keep Massachusetts competitive by promoting a healthy business climate, transparent regulation and small business creation in urban areas. Current initiatives promote market reforms to increase the supply of affordable housing, reduce the cost of doing business, and revitalize urban areas.
  • HCFA Dental Decision 72005.Pdf

    HCFA Dental Decision 72005.Pdf

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-10833-RWZ HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, INC., et al. v. GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY, et al. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION July 14, 2005 ZOBEL, D.J. Plaintiff Virgin Torres complains that she cannot find an oral surgeon for her daughter. Plaintiff Patricia Meaney says that she cannot locate a dentist of adequate quality for her sons. Plaintiff Sharleen Campbell’s child saw a dentist only after Ms. Campbell called approximately fifty other providers. These experiences illustrate the frustration and failure that plaintiffs in the instant case claimed to confront in seeking Medicaid-covered dental care in Massachusetts. Medicaid is a nationwide medical assistance program operated on a state-by-state basis pursuant to individual state plans. States that participate in Medicaid may receive cooperative federal funding if their state plans comply with certain federal criteria. These requirements include provision of dental care and services to Medicaid enrollees under the age of 21. States may elect to provide dental care and services also to adults, and the Medicaid program of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (commonly known as “MassHealth”) does so only for a discrete class of adult beneficiaries who meet regulatory guidelines for severe chronic disabilities or certain clinical conditions and are therefore known as “special circumstances” enrollees. According to plaintiff Health Care For All, Inc. (“HCFA”), the Commonwealth and MassHealth have fallen far short of meeting statutory and assumed obligations to serve the dental needs of children and adult MassHealth enrollees. HCFA is a nonprofit, tax- exempt organization that represents the interests of Massachusetts residents who seek quality, affordable health care.
  • SPRINGFIELD / YOUNG & RESTLESS / GAY New England Regional Council of Carpenters • the Omni Parker House Palmer & Dodge LLP • Partners Healthcare System, Inc

    SPRINGFIELD / YOUNG & RESTLESS / GAY New England Regional Council of Carpenters • the Omni Parker House Palmer & Dodge LLP • Partners Healthcare System, Inc

    CommonWealth KRISS: BUDGET IMBALANCE • HOME RULE MYTHS • THE YOUNG & THE RESTLESS MassINC would like to thank the individuals and organizations whose financial support makes CommonWealth and all of our other work possible. Their generosity is greatly appreciated. new commonwealth sponsors Chris & Hilary Gabrieli • Nellie Mae Education Foundation lead sponsors Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts • FleetBoston Financial Mellon New England • National Grid • Recycled Paper Printing, Inc. CommonWealthPOLITICS,POLITICS, IDEAS,IDEAS, ANDAND CIVICCIVIC LIFELIFE ININ MASSACHUSETTSMASSACHUSETTS Fran & Charles Rodgers • State Street Corporation • Verizon Communications CommonWealth major sponsors Ronald M. Ansin Foundation • Citizens Bank • Irene E. & George A. Davis Foundation Fidelity Investments • The Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation • Foley Hoag LLP The Gillette Company • Goodwin Procter LLP • IBM • Liberty Mutual Group Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities • MENTOR Massachusetts • Monitor Group YOUNG & RESTLESS / GAYSPRINGFIELD / MARRIAGE New England Regional Council of Carpenters • The Omni Parker House Palmer & Dodge LLP • Partners HealthCare System, Inc. • Savings Bank Life Insurance William E. & Bertha E. Schrafft Charitable Trust • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP State House News Service contributing sponsors Associated Industries of Massachusetts • The Beal Companies, LLP • Bingham McCutchen LLP Boston Carmen’s Union • Boston University • Gerald & Kate Chertavian • Commonwealth Corporation SPRINGFIELDSPRINGFIELD::
  • Business Listing in City.Pdf

    Business Listing in City.Pdf

    City of Ontario Revenue Department Listing of Business Licenses NAICS BUSINESS PHONE BUSINESS NAME CODE NAICS DESCRIPTION LOCATION CITY OWNER CHROMCRAFT REVINGTON DOUGLAS INDUSTRIES423210 LTD *** INVALID CODE *** 909-613-0629 2009 S PARCO AV ONTARIO, CA 91761 LI, WILLA 1 AND 1 HEALTH SPA 812199 Other Personal Care Services 626-598-2337 1820 E ELMA CT ONTARIO, CA 91764 CAO, NI 1-2-3 INCOME TAX 541213 Tax Preparation Services 909-224-9887 120 N SULTANA AV ONTARIO, CA 91764 ROSARIO CEJA 1-WAY BACKFLOW SERVICE 0 909-240-3250 6893 DOVE CT CHINO MONTANO, JAMES 1. EL REY DEL TOMATE 561110 951-532-2773 GARCIA, EVA MARIA / TORO JESUS SANCHEZ 10-8 RETROFIT, INC 811121 Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior R 909-986-5551 415 W MAIN ST ONTARIO, CA 91762 KEENAN, DAN & JERRY 1003 EAST DEODAR LLC 531110 Lessors of Residential Buildings and D 626-799-1388 1003 E DEODAR ST ONTARIO, CA 91761 HUNG, RAYMOND 1010 HOLT LLC 531312 Nonresidential Property Managers 818-243-3151 1010 E HOLT BL ONTARIO, CA 91764 1010 HOLT LLC 102 WANAMAKER, LLC 531312 Nonresidential Property Managers 949-509-5000 102 S WANAMAKER AV ONTARIO, CA 91762 102 WANAMAKER, LLC 1095 CALIFORNIA ST LLC 0 1095 E CALIFORNIA ST ONTARIO, CA 91761 ZEIDMAN,PAULA 1134 E LA DENEY 0 714-290-3670 1134 E LA DENEY CT ONTARIO, CA 91764 CHOPRA,RAJAN 1151 MILDRED LLC 0 714-990-2100 1151 S MILDRED AV ONTARIO, CA 91761 1151 MILDRED LLC 123 OFFICE SOLUTION INC 493190 Other Warehousing and Storage 951-237-8910 3929 E GUASTI RD E ONTARIO, CA 91761 SUNG,CHIH-WEI 1290 ELM STREET PARTNERS LLC 531312 Nonresidential Property Managers 951-734-3737 1290 E ELM ST # B ONTARIO, CA 91761 CALDWELL, RUSS J.

  • Commonwealth Summer 2004.Pdf

    CommonWealth SCHOOLS THAT FLUNK • BATTLING BASE CLOSINGS • BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL MassINC would like to thank the individuals and organizations whose financial support makes CommonWealth and all of our other work possible. Their generosity is greatly appreciated. new commonwealth sponsors Chris & Hilary Gabrieli • Nellie Mae Education Foundation lead sponsors Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts • FleetBoston Financial Mellon New England • National Grid • Recycled Paper Printing, Inc. CommonWealthCommonWealthPOLITICS, IDEAS, AND CIVIC LIFE IN MASSACHUSETTS Fran & Charles Rodgers • State Street Corporation • Verizon Communications major sponsors OFFSHORING & TECHNOLOGYF / Ronald M. Ansin Foundation • Citizens Bank • Irene E. & George A. Davis Foundation Fidelity Investments • The Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation • Foley Hoag LLP The Gillette Company • Goodwin Procter LLP • IBM • KeySpan • Liberty Mutual Group OFFSHORE MassDevelopment • Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities • The MENTOR Network Monitor Group • New England Regional Council of Carpenters • Oak Foundation The Omni Parker House • Palmer & Dodge LLP • Partners HealthCare • Savings Bank Life Insurance William E. & Bertha E. Schrafft Charitable Trust • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP CURRENTS State House News Service contributing sponsors TECHNOLOGY, GLOBALIZATION, AARP Massachusetts • Associated Industries of Massachusetts • The Beal Companies, LLP Bingham McCutchen LLP • Boston Carmen’s Union • Boston University • Carruth Capital, LLC AND THE

  • Ommunftattons ~Ommfssfon Washington, D.C

    BEFORE THE .:If eberaI ~ommunftattons ~ommfssfon Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ~ 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review - ) MB Docket No. 09-182 Review of the Commission's Broadcast )) Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the ) Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) Promoting Diversification of Ownership MB Docket No. 07-294 In the Broadcasting Services ~ COMMENTS OF MT. WILSON FM BROADCASTERS, INC. Saul Levine President MT. WILSON FM BROADCASTERS, INC. P.O. Box 250028 Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 478-5540 Date: March 5, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARy ......................................................................................................................... 1 POLICY GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED ONLY BY REDUCING CAPS AND SUBCAPS ....................................................................................................... 2 IMPORTATION OF COMMONLY OWNED STATIONS INTO A DISTANT MARKET ADVERSELY AFFECTS COMPETITION AND SHOULD BE COUNTED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP RULES ................ 9 1. Multicasting ....................................................................................................... 9 OUTSIDE FACTORS ADVERSELY AFFECTING COMPETITION .................... " ..... ; I 1 THE EXISTING RADIO/TELEVISION CROSS OWNERSHIP RULE PROVIDES A LEVEL OF PROTECTION CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY GOALS ............................................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................
  • Rosie D. V. Romney

    Rosie D. V. Romney

    410 F.Supp.2d 18 410 F.Supp.2d 18, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 301,777 (Cite as: 410 F.Supp.2d 18) Motions, Pleadings and Filings United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. ROSIE D. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mitt ROMNEY et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A.01-30199-MAP. Jan. 26, 2006. Background: Children with serious emotional disturbances (SED) brought class action against State of Massachusetts under ' 1983, alleging that State failed to provide them with services required by Medicaid Act. Following affirmance of denial of motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, 310 F.3d 230, non-jury trial was held. Holdings: The District Court, Ponsor, J., held that: (1) State failed to provide children suffering from SED with adequate early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services (EPSDT); (2) State failed to satisfy Act's "reasonable promptness" requirement; and (3) State did not violate Act's "equal access" provision. Judgment for children as to liability. *21 James C. Burling, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Northampton, MA, Gabrielle E. Foote, New York, NY, John Sup Rhee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Frank J. Laski, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, Boston, MA, Samantha J. Morton, Hale & Dorr, LLP, Boston, MA, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Northampton, MA, Sara Jane Shanahan, Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP, Boston, MA, for Anton B., Chelsea T., Chris T., Christine Q., Danielle H., Devin E., Forrest W., Jason S., Jerry N., Jose M., Joshua D., Kristin P., Marc St.
  • Budget – Allotments Policy Page 1 of 3 Approve a Department Request, Which Will Then Await Final Approval Once the Allotment Letter Has Been Signed and Delivered

    Budget – Allotments Policy Page 1 of 3 Approve a Department Request, Which Will Then Await Final Approval Once the Allotment Letter Has Been Signed and Delivered

    THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE STATE HOUSE, ROOM 373 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02133 (617) 727-2040 Mitt Romney Eric Kriss Governor Secretary Kerry Healey Lieutenant Governor Policy: Budget Issue Date: July 1, 2004 Date Last Revised: November 1, 2006 Allotments Policy Executive Summary Policy developed by the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) and the Office of the Comptroller (CTR). This chapter outlines the policy related to the approval of ad hoc allotments when required by a department. Periodic allotments will regularly make direct appropriations available to be spent on a monthly or quarterly basis. Ad hoc allotments may be requested of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) when anticipated spending needs require increased allotments. Considerations The Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) will process periodic allotments to make funds available to be spent, on a period or quarterly basis, for applicable appropriated accounts. If it is anticipated that spending in a particular account or object class will exceed the allotted amount, an ad hoc allotment may be requested. Policy Allotments may be requested using the Central Expense BGCS/BGCN documents, with an event type of BG01 – Adopt an Expense Budget. All allotment requests must contain a brief description explaining why an amount more than the periodic allotment is needed. If additional space is needed, an email should be sent to your department’s ANF budget analyst with the full explanation. As required under section 9B of Chapter 29 of the General Laws, the Secretary of ANF must certify to the Comptroller (CTR) that a report of all supplemental allotments has been filed with the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means prior to implementing those allotments.
  • Budget – Intersubsidiary Transfer Page 1 of 4 Transfers Between Object Classes Will Often Involve Allotted Funds

    Budget – Intersubsidiary Transfer Page 1 of 4 Transfers Between Object Classes Will Often Involve Allotted Funds

    THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE STATE HOUSE, ROOM 373 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02133 (617) 727-2040 Mitt Romney Eric Kriss Governor Secretary Kerry Healey Lieutenant Governor Policy: Budget Issue Date: February 18, 2005 Date Last Revised: November 1, 2006 Intersubsidiary Transfer Executive Summary Policy developed by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance and the Office of the Comptroller (CTR) This chapter outlines the policies for Intersubsidiary Transfers (transfers between object classes). Intersubsidiary (object class) transfers to align funds with spending are allowed in certain circumstances as outlined in this chapter. Considerations The General Appropriations Act (GAA) is loaded in MMARS pursuant to the object class schedules provided by the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees. Traditionally, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) processes transfers between object classes to align funds with spending once spending plans are approved in the fall. Additional requests for transfers can be requested according to this policy. Policy Transfers between object classes should not be requested unless otherwise unavoidable. Transfers out of the AA or DD object classes (payroll or benefits) will generally not be allowed, except in cases of emergency. All object class transfer requests require approval by both the department budget director/CFO and the secretariat chief financial officer (CFO), after which the department can submit the document through MMARS Workflow for approval. All transfer requests must contain a brief description explaining why the transfer is needed. If additional space is needed, an email should be sent to your department’s ANF budget analyst with the full explanation.
  • Intersubsidiary Transfer

    Intersubsidiary Transfer

    THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE STATE HOUSE, ROOM 373 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02133 (617) 727-2040 Mitt Romney Eric Kriss Governor Secretary Kerry Healey Lieutenant Governor Policy: Budget Issue Date: February 18, 2005 Date Last Revised: November 1, 2006 Intersubsidiary Transfer Executive Summary Policy developed by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance and the Office of the Comptroller (CTR) This chapter outlines the policies for Intersubsidiary Transfers (transfers between object classes). Intersubsidiary (object class) transfers to align funds with spending are allowed in certain circumstances as outlined in this chapter. Considerations The General Appropriations Act (GAA) is loaded in MMARS pursuant to the object class schedules provided by the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees. Traditionally, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) processes transfers between object classes to align funds with spending once spending plans are approved in the fall. Additional requests for transfers can be requested according to this policy. Policy Transfers between object classes should not be requested unless otherwise unavoidable. Transfers out of the AA or DD object classes (payroll or benefits) will generally not be allowed, except in cases of emergency. All object class transfer requests require approval by both the department budget director/CFO and the secretariat chief financial officer (CFO), after which the department can submit the document through MMARS Workflow for approval. All transfer requests must contain a brief description explaining why the transfer is needed. If additional space is needed, an email should be sent to your department’s ANF budget analyst with the full explanation.
  • Bureaucracy and Neo-Patrimonialism on Wall Street Fabien

    Bureaucracy and Neo-Patrimonialism on Wall Street Fabien

    Financialization as recombination: Bureaucracy and neo-patrimonialism on Wall Street Fabien Foureault, senior SNSF researcher, sociology, University of Lausanne Lena Ajdacic, junior SNSF researcher, sociology, University of Lausanne Felix Bühlmann, associate professor of sociology, University of Lausanne Correspondence: Fabien Foureault Quartier UNIL-Mouline, Bâtiment Géopolis, Bureau : 5516 CH-1015 Lausanne, SWITZERLAND Phone: +41 21 692 32 16 [email protected] 1 Financialization as recombination: Bureaucracy and neo-patrimonialism on Wall Street Abstract Finance is widely seen as a driving force of modern capitalism, a progress of organizational rationalization, and scaffolding for meritocratic elite reproduction. Using Orbis data on over 28,000 US financial firms, and sociodemographic data on 806 founders and managers in key firms, we show that neo-patrimonial elements, such as hybrid legal forms and trust relationships, are spreading within finance. Our findings show that hedge and private equity funds rely heavily on secretive hybrid forms in which “elite white men” benefit from baked in advantages. Financialization is not a modernization process but a recombination of bureaucracy and neo-patrimonial logics. 12 310 words 2 Introduction Modernization narratives, rooted in the theories of the founding fathers of sociology, crystallize sociological conceptions of social change to date. In these conceptions, a master process leads to the replacement of one social order by another. For Marx (1998), the development of productive forces leads to the replacement of capitalism by communism; for Durkheim (1997), the increasing division of labor in society leads to the replacement of mechanical by organic solidarity. For Weber (1969) – who represents the starting point of this study ̶ the rationalization of social processes leads to the replacement of traditional domination by rational-legal domination.
  • Commonwealth Summer 2003.Pdf

    Commonwealth Summer 2003.Pdf

    KAMARCK: WHY DEMS CAN’T ELECT A GOV. • SKOCPOL: BEWARE OF MUGWUMPS CommonWealthCommonWealthPOLITICS, IDEAS, AND CIVIC LIFE IN MASSACHUSETTS MEANSMEANS OFOF PRODUCTIONPRODUCTION CANCAN ROMNEY’SROMNEY’S TEAMTEAM PERFORMPERFORM AA MASSACHUSETTSMASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE?MIRACLE? Packing laboratory supplies for shipping at Nova Biomedical in Waltham. SUMMER 2003 $5.00 OLD COLLEGE TRY AT FITCHBURG STATE PLUS—TAKING THE T WITH THE METRO The CommonWealth MassINC editor chairmen of the board Commonwealth Robert Keough Gloria Cordes Larson Forums associate editors Peter Meade Michael Jonas, Robert David Sullivan board of directors art director Joseph D. Alviani Harold Hestnes Andrew J. Calamare Joanne Jaxtimer Heather Kramer A Joint Project of Heather P. Campion Jeffrey Jones design consultant MassINC and the Kathleen Casavant Tripp Jones Ken Silvia Neil Chayet Elaine Kamarck Massachusetts Foundation contributing writers Vincent Cipolla Paul Mattera for the Humanities Mary Carey, Christopher Daly, Mark Erlich Kristen McCormack Richard A. Hogarty, John E. McDonough, David H. Feinberg Melvin B. Miller Neil Miller, Laura Pappano, Robert Preer, Robert B. Fraser Hilary C. Pennington Chris Gabrieli Michael E. Porter B.J. Roche, Ralph Whitehead Jr., Katharine Whittemore C. Jeffrey Grogan Mark E. Robinson Hosted by Steve Grossman Alan D. Solomont washington correspondents The Omni Parker House Raymond Hammond Benaree Wiley Michael Crowley, Shawn Zeller Join us for the next Bruce Herzfelder editorial advisors honorary Commonwealth Forum Mickey Edwards, Alex S. Jones, Mitchell Kertzman, Founding Chairman Mary Jo Meisner, Ellen Ruppel Shell, John C. Rennie, in memoriam Alan Wolfe PREVIOUS TOPICS INCLUDE: board of policy advisors publisher economic prosperity: Wayne M. Ayers, Taking a Gamble: Ian Bowles Peter D.