ReportWire

Tag: governance

  • VA Dems Promised Good Governance. Weeks After Storm, Roads Tell Different Story | RealClearPolitics

    [ad_1]

    It has been nearly three weeks since a major storm dropped over a foot of snow across Northern Virginia, and residents still cannot safely walk to Metro stations, navigate neighborhood roads, or walk their dogs without stepping over frozen mounds of snow-crete. Drivers fare no better, creeping around blind corners where frozen snow stacks block sightlines, and navigating two-lane roads that narrow without warning to one, the second lane still buried under walls of packed snow. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has acknowledged that secondary roads and sidewalks remain impassable, with crews resorting to front-end loaders and skid-steers to break through sleet-hardened snowpack that conventional plows cannot handle. For a state that gets winter weather every year, and whose new Democratic trifecta promised voters that the adults were back in charge, the failure is staggering.

    The Democratic Party once prided itself on a simple proposition: Government can do good, and public services can actually serve the public. Virginians heard that case just three months ago, when Gov. Abigail Spanberger and her party asked voters for unified control of state government, pledging to deliver results on affordability, infrastructure, and competent management. Most Virginians who are currently climbing over ice ridges to reach their mailboxes can be forgiven for concluding that promise was, at best, aspirational.

    Rather than marshaling every available resource to restore basic public services, Richmond has been consumed by an ambitious slate of ideological legislation that has little to do with the daily lives of working Virginians. In the first three weeks of the session alone, the General Assembly has advanced a sweeping assault weapons ban; muscled through more than half a dozen gun control bills on a single day; fast-tracked four constitutional amendments on redistricting, abortion, same-sex marriage, and felon voting rights; and begun work on a cannabis retail licensing regime. Speaker Don Scott and Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell have made clear that their priorities are the agenda items that energize their activist base, rather than the mundane, unglamorous work of keeping roads passable and sidewalks clear. Here’s a suggestion: Pause carving up legislative districts and start carving up ice.

    The contrast between legislative ambition and governing competence could not be sharper. Gov. Spanberger declared a state of emergency and thanked Virginians for staying off the roads, but VDOT’s own spokesman conceded that the agency’s standard for success was merely creating an eight-to-10-foot path “suitable for emergency service vehicles.” Now that it has been two weeks since the storm, that standard for success is triage dressed up in a press release, not good governance. When the bar for success is that an ambulance can squeeze through your street, the party of public investment has quietly surrendered the very premise on which it asked for power.

    Snow removal in Northern Virginia is admittedly a patchwork of responsibility, with some counties managing their own roads and others falling under VDOT’s jurisdiction. But that complexity is an explanation, not an excuse. Residents in both categories pay state taxes that fund VDOT, and a governor with emergency powers has every tool needed to coordinate across jurisdictions. The fragmented response is itself an indictment because it shows that no one in Richmond has treated this as a problem worth owning.

    Virginia is not an isolated case; it is the latest confirmation of a pattern visible wherever Democrats hold unified power. In Minnesota, Democratic governance built a web of welfare programs with minimal oversight that has now produced billions of dollars in fraud. In California, a supermajority legislature presides over a state so rife with corruption that prosecutions stretch from the governor’s own chief of staff to a string of Los Angeles City Council members charged with selling favors and steering contracts into their own pockets. The broad takeaway is unmistakable: When today’s Democratic Party wins full control, it treats government not as a vehicle for universal public services but as a mechanism for redistributing resources to allied interest groups.

    Democratic leaders in Richmond have spent the session making the case that government should do more, pushing for more regulation, more programs, and more public investment. That is a legitimate governing philosophy, but it comes with an obligation: You have to prove you can execute the basics first. Public coffers that should fund road maintenance, snow removal, parks, and the basic infrastructure of shared civic life are increasingly stretched thin by expanding entitlement and transfer programs that, whatever their merits, leave less for the unglamorous work of keeping a state running. If state government cannot clear snow from roads and sidewalks two weeks after a storm, why should voters trust it to manage a far more ambitious agenda? They won’t, because the result is a government that is simultaneously more expensive and less functional – a paradox that defines blue-state governance today.

    Virginians should demand that their elected leaders govern before they legislate. Gov. Spanberger and the General Assembly have plenty of session days remaining to advance their policy agenda. They do not lack time. What they lack is a sense of obligation to the basic compact between a government and its citizens, the compact that says if you collect our taxes and promise competent management, the walking paths to Metro should not still be impassable over two weeks after a snowstorm.

    Voters outside the Commonwealth should take note. When “moderate” Democrats campaign in your state this year promising affordability and good governance, ask them what happened in Virginia, in Minnesota, in California. Ask them why every Democratic trifecta in America seems to produce the same result: ambitious new programs for favored groups and decaying public services for everyone else. Gov. Spanberger ran on affordability and competent governance. Residents of Northern Virginia, still navigating frozen roads and impassable sidewalks, are reconsidering what those words actually meant.

    Dr. Benjamin Jaros is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a resident of Northern Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Benjamin Jaros, RCP

    Source link

  • Methuen council shoots down increase in mayoral powers on contracts

    [ad_1]

    METHUEN — A bid by Mayor D.J Beauregard aimed at increasing government efficiency through cutting down on City Council oversight failed resoundingly.

    The council voted 7-2 on Monday against approving an ordinance, proposed by Beauregard, to raise the dollar limit from $25,000 to $50,000 on contracts not requiring council approval.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmsFC:?8 E96 >66E:?8[ >2?J 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D D2:5 E96J H6C6 H2CJ @7 C@==:?8 324< H92E 925 366? 2? 2EE6>AE 3J 2? 62C=:6C 4@F?4:= E@ AFE 2 4964< @? >2J@C2= A@H6C E92E 925 366? 23FD65[ 244@C5:?8 E@ D@>6 @77:4:2=D]k^Am

    kAm“x 5@ DFAA@CE 677:4:6?E 8@G6C?>6?E[” r@F?4:=@C !2EC:4:2 ‘2==6J D2:5] “qFE x E9:?< E9:D @C5:?2?46 D9:7ED E@@ >F49 =:<6 2FE9@C:EJ 2H2J 7C@> E96 4:EJ 4@F?4:=]”k^Am

    kAmq62FC682C5 D2:5 =2DE J62C E96 4@F?4:= G@E65 @? hf G6?5@C 4@?EC24ED[ ac @7 H9:49 H6C6 F?56C Sd_[___]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • The Next Corporate Risk No One Is Preparing For

    [ad_1]

    Over the last few years, I’ve watched something strange happen inside the world of founders, executives, and wealthy families. Companies invest millions in cybersecurity, yet attacks keep entering through a completely different door. Not through servers, not through corporate networks, but through the personal digital lives of the people who run them.

    That gap is where I spend most of my time now.

    What I’ve learned is simple: Executives operate with two identities. The “official” identity is monitored, audited, and controlled. The unmanaged digital shadow is built over a lifetime of online habits, data leaks, personal accounts, public records, and information brokers. That second identity has quietly become the real attack surface.

    And almost no one is defending it.

    Chain reactions from personal exposure

    Before founding LeyesX, my cyberintelligence firm, I spent years navigating the darker corners of the internet myself. I lost over $100,000 in scams, fraud, rug pulls, digital impersonation, and identity exploitation. At some point, you stop blaming events and start studying architecture. You begin tracking how people are targeted, why attacks escalate, and how fragments of personal information turn into full-scale intrusion paths.

    It became clear that modern risk isn’t technical-first, it’s human-first.

    A leaked address turns into a SIM swap. A dormant email becomes an impersonation vector. A public record becomes a phishing tool. A leaked ID number can lead to a financial breach.

    These aren’t isolated incidents. They are chain reactions built from personal exposure.

    The problem is that our risk frameworks haven’t evolved. Companies protect systems, but neglect the human being behind the system. They secure networks, but ignore the accumulated data trails that attackers actually study.

    Organizational governance

    A new option is adopting a model that approaches digital risk. Organizational governance should not be a security feature, but a continuous system. A model should map how personal data moves, leaks, replicates, and regroups across platforms, and map how attackers assemble those fragments into predictable pathways. It should blend cyberintelligence, mapping, personal exposure reduction, and narrative stabilization.

    I’ve seen firsthand how ignoring this layer destabilizes leadership. Executives are often shocked when we create their exposure map. Old domains they forgot about. Email addresses tied to long-abandoned accounts. Records connecting them to properties, relatives, assistants, and historic data brokers. Family members they never realized were vulnerable.

    When people see it, they realize that the threat wasn’t “out there.” It was already wrapped around them.

    The personal impacts the organization

    Companies lose billions each year to identity-driven fraud. Not because their firewalls failed, but because their leaders’ personal exposure created an entry path. And when leaders are compromised, the impact is organizational: financial disruption, legal exposure, reputational instability, and operational risk.

    Some private wealth offices have begun adopting identity governance as a formal part of their risk strategy. They treat their principals like infrastructure—assets that require continuous protection, not reactive repair. It’s a shift I expect to see across more industries as identity becomes intertwined with corporate continuity.

    Digital identity is infrastructure now, and it needs to be governed like it.

    If companies want real resilience, they must protect the humans at the center of the structure with the same discipline they apply to corporate systems. That’s where the next decade of risk management is heading, whether organizations prepare for it or not.

    We can no longer pretend that personal exposure is separate from corporate risk. The line has already disappeared. The only question is whether leaders will respond before attackers do.

    The extended deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 19, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Leyes

    Source link

  • DiZoglio launches effort to pry open Beacon Hill

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — With her voter-approved audit of the Legislature stalled, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is leading a new effort to pry open Beacon Hill’s secret legislative process.

    The Methuen Democrat has launched a ballot initiative to make the House of Representatives, Senate and the governor’s office subject to the state’s public records law and she said supporters have cleared a major hurdle to the 2026 ballot by collecting more than 100,000 signatures from registered voters.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“*@F A2J E2I6D[ D@ J@F 92G6 2 C:89E E@ 65:2 2??@F?4:?8 E96 677@CE] “%C2?DA2C6?4J[ 244@F?E23:=:EJ[ 2?5 2446DD:3:=:EJ >2EE6C]”k^Am

    kAmp DF>>2CJ @7 s:+@8=:@’D AC@A@D2= D2:5 :E H@F=5 >2<6 “>@DE C64@C5D” 96=5 3J E96 {68:D=2EFC6 2?5 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46 DF3;64E E@ C6BF6DE 3J E96 >65:2 2?5 AF3=:4]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D AC@A@D65 =2H H@F=5 6I6>AE 5@4F>6?ED C6=2E65 E@ E96 56G6=@A>6?E @7 AF3=:4 A@=:4J 2?5 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 36EH66? =68:D=2E@CD 2?5 E96:C 4@?DE:EF6?ED[ :7 E9@D6 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 2C6 C62D@?23=J C6=2E65 E@ 2 4@?DE:EF6?E’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2DD:DE2?46 😕 @3E2:?:?8 8@G6C?>6?EAC@G:565 36?67:ED @C D6CG:46D @C :?E6C24E:?8 H:E9 2 8@G6C?>6?E 286?4J[” E96 AC@A@D2= C625D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 😀 E96 @?=J DE2E6 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ H96C6 E96 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46[ {68:D=2EFC6 2?5 ;F5:4:2CJ 2== 4=2:> E96J 2C6 6I6>AE 7C@> E96 AF3=:4 C64@C5D =2H] %9:D 92D =65 @A6? 8@G6C?>6?E 8C@FAD E@ 4@?D:DE6?E=J =236= :ED u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D 2D E96 H62<6DE 😕 E96 ?2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm{2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 3:==D 😕 E96 A2DE E@ @A6? FA 2== E9C66 3C2?496D @7 8@G6C?>6?E E@ E96 C64@C5D =2HD[ 3FE E96J 72:=65 E@ 82:? EC24E:@?] v@@5 8@G6C?>6?E 8C@FAD 92G6 C68F=2C=J FC865 v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J 2?5 =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD E@ AC@G:56 >@C6 EC2?DA2C6?4J @7 E96:C :??6C H@C<:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6’D AF3=:4 C64@C5D =2H H2D @G6C92F=65 😕 a_`e E@ :>AC@G6 2446DD E@ :?7@C>2E:@? 2?5 >2<6 :E 92C56C 7@C DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?E E@ D9:6=5 :?7@C>2E:@?]k^Am

    kAmqFE E96 {68:D=2EFC6 564:565 E@ =62G6 :ED @H? 6I6>AE:@? :?E24E[ 2D H6== 2D E9@D6 7@C E96 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46 2?5 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAmtI6>AE:@?D E@ AF3=:4 C64@C5D 2?5 @A6? >66E:?8 =2HD >62? E96 DE2E6’D E@A 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D 42? 5@ >F49 @7 E96:C H@C< 369:?5 4=@D65 5@@CD]k^Am

    kAms6>@4C2ED H9@ 9@=5 2 >2;@C:EJ 😕 3@E9 E96 DE2E6 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 $6?2E6[ 7@C 6I2>A=6[ 42? 5:D4FDD 3:==D 2?5 E96 DE2E6 3F586E 369:?5 4=@D65 5@@CD] ~7E6?[ ?@ C64@C5D 2C6 <6AE]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6’D @A6? >66E:?8 =2H C6BF:C6D @E96C 8@G6C?>6?E2= 3@5:6D E@ 2==@H E96 AF3=:4 E@ 2EE6?5 2?J >66E:?8 😕 H9:49 2 >2EE6C F?56C :ED ;FC:D5:4E:@? 😀 5:D4FDD65]k^Am

    kAm{2H>2<6CD @7E6? 4@?G6?6 E96? G@E6 E@ 8@ :?E@ 4=@D65 D6DD:@? H:E9 =:EE=6 6IA=2?2E:@?[ 32CC:?8 E96 AF3=:4 2?5 ?6HD C6A@CE6CD]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Salisbury OKs almost all Town Meeting articles

    [ad_1]

    SALISBURY — The fall Town Meeting went off without a hitch Monday with all recommended articles being approved by townspeople.

    The Town Meeting warrant included 38 articles, with the warrant advisory committee recommending all but Article 38.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmpCE:4=6 bg H9:49 H@F=5 “D66 :7 E96 E@H? H:== G@E6 E@ 2446AE 2D 2 AF3=:4 H2J E96 C@25H2J @H? 2D (:?E6C36CCJ r:C4=6[” H2D 2=D@ ?@E C64@>>6?565 3J E96 q@2C5 @7 $6=64E>6? 2E 2? 6>6C86?4J >66E:?8 @? ~4E] `c]k^Am

    kAm%96 2CE:4=6 H2D ?@E C64@>>6?565 3J D6=64E>6? 5F6 E@ A2A6CH@C< :DDF6D[ H:E9 =@42= =6256CD 9@A67F= E96 2CE:4=6 H:== 36 C6:?EC@5F465 2E E96 DAC:?8 %@H? |66E:?8]k^Am

    kAm%96 >2;@C:EJ @7 2CE:4=6D H6C6 25@AE65 F?2?:>@FD=J[ H:E9 E96 C6>2:?56C 2AAC@G65 3J >2;@C:EJ G@E6]k^Am

    kAm$2=:D3FCJ %@H? |2?286C }6:= w2CC:?8E@? D2:5 96 H2D 8=25 E@ D66 E96 >66E:?8 9:E :ED BF@CF> @7 `ad G@E6CD H9@ D9@H65 FA E@ 5@ E96:C 4:G:4 5FEJ]k^Am

    kAm“%96 >66E:?8 H6?E G6CJ D>@@E9=J[ 2?5 x 2> 8C2E67F= E@ E96 7@=F49 >@C6] %96 @?=J 2CE:4=6 E92E H2D ?@E 25@AE65 H2D E96 2446AE2?46 @7 (:?E6C36CCJ r:C4=6 2D 2 E@H?@H?65 C@25[ 3FE H6 9@A6 E@ 36 23=6 E@ 244@>A=:D9 E9:D 2E E96 2??F2= %@H? |66E:?8 ?6IE |2J[” 96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAmp ?F>36C @7 2CE:4=6D @? E96 H2CC2?E A6CE2:?65 E@ E96 2AAC@AC:2E:@? @7 7C66 42D9 7C@> E96 86?6C2= 7F?5[ H2E6C 7F?5 2?5 D6H6C 7F?5]k^Am

    kAmw2CC:?8E@? D2:5 AC:@C E@ E96 2AAC@G2= @7 2== 2CE:4=6D[ E96 E@H?’D 7C66 42D9 86?6C2= 7F?5 4@?E2:?65 S`[d__[cbd]k^Am

    kAmp7E6C >@C6 E92? a_ 2CE:4=6D C682C5:?8 E96 2AAC@AC:2E:@? @7 7C66 42D9 H6C6 2AAC@G65[ :E 42>6 E@ 2 E@E2= @7 S`[_af[___ 😕 2AAC@AC:2E:@?D[ =62G:?8 Scfb[cbd =67E 😕 E96 86?6C2= 7F?5]k^Am

    kAm!C:@C E@ E96 >66E:?8[ E96 D6H6C 7F?5 4@?E2:?65 Sa[hhg[efd 2?5 E@H?DA6@A=6 G@E65 E@ 2AAC@G6 E96 2AAC@AC:2E:@?D @7 pCE:4=6D d[ e 2?5 a_ E@E2=:?8 Scd[___]k^Am

    kAm%96C6 H6C6 2=D@ 7:G6 7C66 42D9 2AAC@AC:2E:@?D A2DD65 E@E2=:?8 S`fa[___ 7C@> E96 H2E6C 6?E6CAC:D6 7F?5 H9:49 4@?E2:?65 S`[`fc[hcg]k^Am

    kAmpD 2 C6DF=E @7 2CE:4=6D pCE:4=6D acaf A2DD:?8[ S`eh[___ @7 7C66 42D9 H2D 2AAC@AC:2E65 E@ E96 $2=:D3FCJ !@=:46 s6A2CE>6?E E@ 7F?5 E96 AFC492D6 @7 2 ?6H A@=:46 4CF:D6C[ ?6H A2EC@=>2?[ ?6H 92?58F?D 2?5 E96 C6A=246>6?E @7 3F==6EAC@@7 G6DED]k^Am

    kAm$2=:D3FCJ !@=:46 r9:67 %@> u@H=6C D2:5 E96 >@?6J H:== A@D:E:G6=J :>A24E AF3=:4 D276EJ]k^Am

    kAm“xE 766=D 8C62E E@ 92G6 E92E DFAA@CE 7C@> E96 4:E:K6?D E92E 2EE6?565 %@H? |66E:?8] p?5[ E96D6 2AAC@AC:2E:@?D H:== 6?92?46 AF3=:4 D276EJ 😕 E@H? 2?5 E96 D6CG:46D E92E H6 42? AC@G:56 E96 4:E:K6?D 2?5 G:D:E@CD @7 $2=:D3FCJ]k^Am

    kAm%96 >66E:?8 2=D@ C6DF=E65 😕 E96 2AAC@G2= @7 7F?5:?8 7@C E96 7:CDE J62C @7 7:G6 4@==64E:G6 32C82:?:?8 28C66>6?ED[ C6A2:CD E@ E96 =:3C2CJ’D w’pr DJDE6>D 2?5 >@C6]k^Am

    kAm%@H?DA6@A=6 H:== 82E96C ?6IE 7@C E96 DAC:?8 %@H? |66E:?8 😕 |2J]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caitlin Dee | cdee@newburyportnews.com

    Source link

  • Why Miami needs a charter review commission. Vote yes | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    Miami Commissioner Ralph Rosado urges voters to approve a ballot measure this Nov. 4 creating a charter review commission that meets every decade to make changes to the city’s governing document.

    Miami Commissioner Ralph Rosado urges voters to approve a ballot measure this Nov. 4 creating a charter review commission that meets every decade to make changes to the city’s governing document.

    pportal@miamiherald.com

    Every decade, the U.S. Census tells us who we are and how we’ve changed.

    It shows how our neighborhoods have grown, how our demographics have shifted and how our needs as a city have evolved. But while we regularly update our data, we rarely update the document that defines how we govern ourselves — the city charter. That needs to change. This November, Miami voters will have the chance to approve a ballot measure that requires the creation of a charter review commission every 10 years.

    It’s a simple idea rooted in good governance: once every decade, the city will convene a group of residents — qualified electors from across our neighborhoods — to take a thoughtful look at our charter, engage the public and recommend improvements to ensure our government remains accountable, transparent and responsive to the people it serves. Miami is not the same city it was 50, 20 or even 10 years ago. We’ve seen new residents, new industries, new environmental realities and new expectations of what local government should be.

    Yet our charter — the “constitution” of our city — doesn’t undergo a regular and comprehensive review. That means many of its provisions reflect a Miami of the past, not the Miami of today.

    Creating a recurring charter review commission ensures we never fall behind on our progress. It provides a built-in mechanism to modernize our structure of government as the city grows — without waiting for a crisis or controversy to spark reform. This is how strong, self-aware cities govern themselves. This isn’t a new or radical idea. Across Miami-Dade County and throughout Florida and the U.S., cities have long relied on recurring charter review committees.

    These panels give residents a formal seat at the table to assess how their local government is working and whether the charter still meets community needs. Citizen committees can improve coordination, transparency and accountability. When done right, this process gives the public voice structure, purpose and follow-through. Government should never be afraid of review — in fact, the healthiest governments invite it. By writing this requirement directly into our charter, we’re hard-wiring accountability into our civic DNA.

    Every ten years — after each federal census — Miami will take stock of its own structure, invite residents to weigh in and issue a public report with recommendations. An open, deliberate process led by the people themselves. This isn’t about politics — it’s about stewardship. We owe it to future generations to leave behind a government that grows, learns and improves with time. On Nov. 4, you’ll see this question on your ballot: Shall the City Charter be amended to establish a Charter Review Commission and require the City Commission, within one year after each federal decennial census, to appoint a Charter Review Commission of qualified electors of the City to review the City Charter, hold public hearings for community input and recommend Charter amendments to the City Commission?” A “Yes” vote means Miami commits to regular self-reflection and improvement. It means residents will always have a formal role in shaping how their city operates. And it means our government will never grow too disconnected from the people it serves. Let’s make sure our city’s charter evolves with us. On Nov. 4, vote “Yes” for a charter review commission.

    Vote “Yes” for transparency, accountability and a government that learns. Ralph Rosado is a city of Miami Commissioner who represents District 4.

    Ralph Rosado
    Ralph Rosado

    [ad_2]

    Ralph Rosado

    Source link

  • Amesbury mayor proposes Prop. 2 1/2 override

    [ad_1]

    AMESBURY – Mayor Kassandra Gove on Tuesday announced she will be asking the City Council to consider approving a Proposition 2 ½ budget override question as part of the Nov. 4 city election this month.

    The proposal for the override question states “Shall the City of Amesbury be allowed to assess an additional $6 million in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the operating budgets of the city and of the public schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026?”


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm!C@A@D:E:@? a ½ 😀 2 |2DD249FD6EED =2H 6?24E65 😕 `hg_[ 2?5 H6?E :?E@ 67764E 😕 u*`hga[ E92E DEC:4E=J =:>:ED E96 2>@F?E @7 AC@A6CEJ E2I C6G6?F6 2 >F?:4:A2=:EJ 42? C2:D6 E9C@F89 C62= 2?5 A6CD@?2= AC@A6CEJ E2I6D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 DE2E6VD H63D:E6] k^Am

    kAmx7 E96 BF6DE:@? H2D A=2465 @? E96 32==@E 2?5 2AAC@G65 3J G@E6CD[ :E H@F=5 36 FD65 E@ >2:?E2:? Q=6G6= D6CG:46D[Q 244@C5:?8 E@ 2 AC6DD C6=62D6 3J E96 4:EJ]k^Am

    kAm“(:E9@FE 255:E:@?2= 7F?5:?8[ D49@@=D 2?5 @E96C 4:EJ 56A2CE>6?ED H:== 6IA6C:6?46 4C:E:42= C65F4E:@?D 😕 DE277:?8[ AC@8C2>D[ 2?5 >2:?E6?2?46[” E96 C6=62D6 D2:5]k^Am

    kAmu@C E96 BF6DE:@? E@ 36 A=2465 @? E96 32==@E[ :E C6BF:C6D 2 >2;@C:EJ G@E6 @7 E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= 2D H6== 2D v@G6VD 2AAC@G2=] k^Am

    kAmv@G6 D2:5 D96 DFAA@CED E96 8:G:?8 E96 49@:46 23@FE E96 @G6CC:56 E@ p>6D3FCJ G@E6CD]k^Am

    kAm“u@C >2?J J62CD[ x 92G6 366? 2D<65 E@ 3C:?8 7@CH2C5 2? @G6CC:56 BF6DE:@? E@ E96 32==@E D@ G@E6CD 4@F=5 564:56] pD A2CE @7 @FC @?8@:?8 4@>>:E>6?E E@ EC2?DA2C6?4J 2?5 C6DA@?D:3=6 7:?2?4:2= A=2??:?8[ 2 }@G6>36C 32==@E BF6DE:@? 8:G6D G@E6CD E96 @AA@CEF?:EJ E@ >2<6 E96:C G@:46D 962C5 5FC:?8 2 C68F=2C 6=64E:@?[ H9:=6 2=D@ 2==@H:?8 4:EJ DE277 E@ A=2? 29625 7@C E96 u*a_af 3F586E[” D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm#624965 7@C 4@>>6?E[ r:EJ r@F?4:=@C $E6G6 $E2?82?6==: D2:5 96 DFAA@CED 2==@H:?8 E96 564:D:@? E@ 36 >256 3J G@E6CD]k^Am

    kAm“$@>6E9:?8 2D 4@?D6BF6?E:2= 2D E9:D D9@F=5 86E :?AFE 7C@> E96 AF3=:4[” 96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$E2?82?6==: 2=D@ D2:5 96 6?4@FC286D 4C:E:4D @7 E96 AC@A@D2= E@ 6?8286 H:E9 5:D4FDD:@?D @? E96 >2EE6C]k^Am

    kAm“x7 A6@A=6 2C6 8@:?8 E@ 42DE E96D6 244FD2E:@?D 2?5 2DA6CD:@?[ :7 E96J C62==J H2?E E@ 36 A2CE @7 E96 4@?G6CD2E:@? 2?5 E96 5632E6[ E96J D9@F=5] (6 D9@F=5 2== 36 @A6C2E:?8 7C@> E96 D2>6 D6E @7 724ED[ 2?5 2== @7 E9@D6 724ED 2C6 @FE=:?65 😕 E96 3F586E 3@@<[” 96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAmr:EJ r@F?4:=@C !2> v:=52J D2:5 D96 6?4@FC286D p>6D3FCJ C6D:56?ED E@ 72>:=:2C:K6 E96>D6=G6D H:E9 E96 >2E6C:2= 4@?46C?:?8 E96 BF6DE:@?]k^Am

    kAm“x H@F=5 FC86 2== C6D:56?ED E@ E2<6 E96 E:>6 E@ C625 E96 @G6CC:56 5@4F>6?E E92E E96 4:EJ 92D AFE E@86E96C @? E96 4:EJ H63D:E6] xE’D 2 3:8 BF6DE:@?[ H6’G6 ?6G6C 925 2? @G6CC:56 G@E6[” D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%@ AC6A2C6 7@C E96 7:=:?8 @7 E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= 3:==[ 2 7:?2?4:2= 25G:D@CJ 3@2C5 4@>A@D65 @7 <6J 4:EJ =6256CD 567:?65 E96 4@>A@?6?ED @7 E96 BF6DE:@? 2?5 4@?D:56C65 E96 ?665D @7 p>6D3FCJ 56A2CE>6?ED]k^Am

    kAm“%96 8@2= @7 E96 25G:D@CJ 3@2C5 H2D E@ 6?DFC6 E96 46CE2:?EJ @7 C6G6?F6 2?5 =6GJ 42A24:EJ 😕 25G2?46 @7 E96 7:D42= a_af 3F586E[ 4@?D:56C E96 ?665D @7 2== 4:EJ 56A2CE>6?ED[ >2<6 564:D:@?D 😕 4@>A=:2?46 H:E9 =@42==J 2446AE65 A@=:4:6D[ 2?5 AC@G:56 EC2?DA2C6?4J E@ G@E6CD[” E96 C6=62D6 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%9C@F89 E96 3@2C5’D C6G:6H[ E96J 56E6C>:?65 H92E E96J 36=:6G6 😀 E96 36DE H2J E@ 6?DFC6 7:?2?4:2= DE23:=:EJ 😕 p>6D3FCJ 3@E9 😕 E96 AC6D6?E 2?5 7FEFC6]k^Am

    kAm“%96 upq W7:?2?4:2= :56?E:7:65 E96 82A 36EH66? H92E E96 4:EJ 42? =682==J C2:D6 2?5 H92E 😀 ?66565 E@ >2:?E2:? 4FCC6?E D6CG:46D] %96 C6DF=E 😀 2 AC@A@D2= E92E ?@E @?=J 4@G6CD E96 :>>65:2E6 82A 😕 E96 4@>:?8 7:D42= J62C 3FE 2=D@ A@D:E:@?D E96 4:EJ 7@C DE23:=:EJ @G6C 7FEFC6 J62CD] qJ 3F:=5:?8 😕 C6DA@?D:3=6 C6G6?F6 AC@;64E:@?D[ E96 @G6CC:56 😀 6IA64E65 E@ DFAA@CE 32=2?465 3F586ED 36J@?5 ?6IE J62C[” E96 C6=62D6 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 AC@A@D2= H:== 36 367@C6 4@F?4:=@CD @? %F6D52J 27E6C E96 7:CDE C625:?8 2E E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= >66E:?8 %F6D52J[ 2 D64@?5 C625:?8[ 5:D4FDD:@? 2?5 G@E6 H:== E2<6 A=246 2E E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= >66E:?8 @? $6AE] ab]k^Am

    kAm%96C6 H:== 2=D@ 36 2 AF3=:4 7@CF> 2E r:EJ w2== @? $6AE] `e 2D H6== 2D r@F?4:= qF586E 2?5 u:?2?46 >66E:?8 @? E96 D2>6 52J]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caitlin Dee | cdee@newburyportnews.com

    Source link

  • AG certifies record number of ballot questions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Plans to bring back rent control to Massachusetts, roll back the state’s personal income tax, repeal the MBTA Communities Act, ditch the state’s gas tax and require voters to show ID to cast ballots are among a record number of proposed referendums inching toward the 2026 ballot.

    On Wednesday, Attorney General Andrea Campbell certified 44 proposed initiatives filed by individuals and groups seeking voter approval for changes in state law.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmp>@?8 E96> 😀 2 AC@A@D2= E@ 2D<:?8 G@E6CD E@ 3C:?8 324< C6?E 4@?EC@= 3J D6EE:?8 2 DE2E6H:56 =:>:E @? 2? 2??F2= C6?E :?4C62D6D 32D65 @? E96 DE2E6’D “4@DE @7 =:G:?8” — >62DFC65 3J E96 4@?DF>6C AC:46 :?56I — H:E9 2 dT 42A 2??F2==J]k^Am

    kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 A=2?[ H9:49 😀 36:?8 DA62C962565 3J E96 25G@424J 8C@FA w@>6D 7@C p== |2DD[ D2J E96 DE2E6’D 6G6CC:D:?8 C6?ED 2C6 >2<:?8 9@FD:?8 F?277@C523=6 7@C =@H:?4@>6 C6D:56?ED 2?5 D2J E96C6 ?665D E@ 36 =:>:ED @? 6I@C3:E2?E :?4C62D6D 3J =2?5=@C5D]k^Am

    kAm“|2DD249FD6EED ?665D 32D:4 AC@E64E:@?D 282:?DE 6I46DD:G6 C6?E 9:<6D E@ <66A A6@A=6 😕 E96:C 9@>6D[ DFAA@CE H@C<:?8 72>:=:6D[ 2?5 DE23:=:K6 @FC 4@>>F?:E:6D[” }@6>: “|:>:” #2>@D[ 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 }6H t?8=2?5 r@>>F?:EJ !C@;64E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAmrC:E:4D @7 C6?E 4@?EC@=[ H9:49 H2D 32??65 3J E96 DE2E6’D G@E6CD 😕 `hhd[ 2C8F6 :E H@F=5 C65F46 9@FD:?8 DFAA=J 2?5 5C:G6 C6?ED 6G6? 9:896C[ 7FCE96C 6I246C32E:?8 E96 DE2E6’D 9@FD:?8 4C:D:D]k^Am

    kAm!2F= rC2?6J[ 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 E96 u:D42= p==:2?46 u@F?52E:@?[ 4C:E:4:K65 r2>A36== 7@C 46CE:7J:?8 E96 “F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2=” C6?E 4@?EC@= C676C6?5F> 2?5 AC65:4E65 E92E :E H@F=5 F=E:>2E6=J 36 <6AE @77 E96 32==@E 3J 2 =682= 492==6?86]k^Am

    kAm“qJ 42AA:?8 C6?E2= :?4@>6[ E9:D >62DFC6 5:C64E=J 2?5 AC65:4E23=J E2<6D G2=F6 7C@> =2?5=@C5D 2?5 =6?56CD H:E9@FE 4@>A6?D2E:@?] %92E 😀 AC64:D6=J E96 <:?5 @7 E2<:?8 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@? 7@C3:5D[” rC2?6J D2:5] “%96 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2=’D A@=:E:42= 49@:46 E@ 25G2?46 E9:D D496>6 5@6D ?@E 6C2D6 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= AC@E64E:@?D 7@C AC@A6CEJ C:89ED]”k^Am

    kAmp?@E96C AC@A@D2= 46CE:7:65 3J r2>A36==’D @77:46 H@F=5 C6A62= E96 |q%p r@>>F?:E:6D p4E[ 2 a_a` DE2E6 =2H C6BF:C:?8 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?ED E@ 565:42E6 >@C6 =2?5 E@ >F=E:72>:=J 9@FD:?8 ?62C AF3=:4 EC2?D:E] %96 =2H 92D 366? 2 D@FC46 @7 7C:4E:@? 36EH66? =@42= 8@G6C?>6?ED 2?5 E96 DE2E6 2?5 DA2H?65 D6G6C2= =2HDF:ED]k^Am

    kAm%96 pv 2=D@ 82G6 2 8C66? =:89E E@ 2 AC@A@D2= 3J E96 |2DD249FD6EED w:89 %649?@=@8J r@F?4:= @? 3692=7 @7 3FD:?6DD6D 2?5 E2IA2J6CD E92E 2D6 E2I C2E6 7C@> dT E@ cT @G6C 2 E9C66J62C A6C:@5[ 2>@?8 @E96C 492?86D 324<6CD D2J 2C6 2:>65 2E C65F4:?8 E96 DE2E6’D 9:89 4@DE @7 =:G:?8]k^Am

    kAm“%96 AC@A@D65 E2I 4FE 4@F=5 D2G6 E96 2G6C286 |2DD249FD6EED E2IA2J6C S`[b__ 2??F2==J 4@>A2C65 E@ E96 DE2EFD BF@[” D2:5 y:> $E6C8:@D[ 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 !:@?66C x?DE:EFE6[ 2 q@DE@? 32D65 E9:?<E2?< 2?5 @?6 @7 E96 8C@FAD 369:?5 E96 :?:E:2E:G6] “pD E96 4@DE @7 =:G:?8 4@?E:?F6D E@ C:D6[ C6D:56?ED 2C6 6286C 7@C 7@CH2C5=@@<:?8 D@=FE:@?D E92E @776C >62?:?87F= C6=:67]”k^Am

    kAm$6G6C2= @7 E96 46CE:7:65 32==@E BF6DE:@?D D66 @? E96 }@G6>36C a_ae 32==@E 2AAC@G:?8 D2>652J G@E6C C68:DEC2E:@? 3J D4C2AA:?8 E96 DE2E6’D `_52J 4FE @77 E@ C68:DE6C E@ G@E6]k^Am

    kAm|62?H9:=6[ G@E6CD H@F=5 36 C6BF:C65 E@ D9@H A9@E@ :56?E:7:42E:@? E@ 42DE 32==@ED 2?5 7656C2= DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 6=64E:@?D F?56C 2?@E96C AC@A@D2= 4=62C65 3J E96 pv’D @77:46]k^Am

    kAmp?@E96C 32==@E BF6DE:@? 46CE:7:65 (65?6D52J H@F=5 2D< G@E6CD 😕 E96 a_ag 6=64E:@?D E@ 2>6?5 E96 DE2E6 r@?DE:EFE:@? @G6CEFC? 2 `hg` $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE CF=:?8 E92E C6BF:C6D E96 DE2E6 E@ 7F?5 23@CE:@? D6CG:46D]k^Am

    kAm%@ 86E @? E96 32==@E[ E92E AC@A@D2= 2=D@ ?665D 2AAC@G2= 7C@> d_ >6>36CD @7 E96 a__>6>36C {68:D=2EFC6[ >66E:?8 😕 EH@ DF446DD:G6 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 4@?G6?E:@?D]k^Am

    kAmr2>A36==’D @77:46 2=D@ C6;64E65 E9C66 32==@E :?:E:2E:G6D (65?6D52J[ :?4=F5:?8 2 AC@A@D2= E@ C6BF:C6 DE2E6 AC:>2C:6D 7@C 2== C68:DE6C65 A@=:E:42= A2CE:6D 2?5 2?@E96C E92E 42==65 7@C D4C2AA:?8 E96 DE2E6’D “?@ 6I4FD6” G@E:?8 3J >2:= =2H 2?5 2==@H @?=J 23D6?E66 G@E:?8]k^Am

    kAmx? 2 =6EE6C[ E96 pv’D @77:46 D2:5 E92E AC@A@D2= 5:5?’E >66E E96 =682= C6BF:C6>6?ED 7@C 46CE:7:42E:@? 3642FD6 :E H@F=5 G:@=2E6 E96 DE2E6 4@?DE:EFE:@? 3J C6BF:C:?8 A6@A=6 E@ G@E6 😕 A6CD@?]k^Am

    kAm%96 C6;64E:@? =6EE6C D2:5 E96C6 😀 ?@ 6G:56?46 E92E G@E:?8 3J >2:= “:?4C62D6D E96 C:D< @7 3C:36CJ[ 7C2F5[ @C 4@CCFAE:@? 😕 G@E:?8 @C F?56C>:?6D E96 4@>>@?H62=E9’D G2=:5 :?E6C6DE 😕 AC@>@E:?8 9@?6DEJ[ 72:C?6DD[ 2?5 @C56C 😕 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@? @7 :ED 6=64E:@?D]”k^Am

    kAm$FAA@CE6CD @7 E96 32==@E BF6DE:@?D 46CE:7:65 3J 96C @77:46 @? (65?6D52J 92G6 D6G6C2= 255:E:@?2= 9FC5=6D E@ 4=62C 😕 E96 ?6IE `c >@?E9D[ ?@E =62DE @7 H9:49 😀 82E96C:?8 2E =62DE fc[dfc D:8?2EFC6D @7 C68:DE6C65 G@E6CD 3J s64] b]k^Am

    kAm%96J >FDE 2=D@ D66< =68:D=2E:G6 2AAC@G2=[ 3FE :7 E92E 72:=D E96J >FDE 82E96C 2?@E96C C@F?5 @7 D:8?2EFC6D E@ 86E 2 DA@E @? E96 32==@E ?6IE }@G6>36C]k^Am

    kAmx? E96 a_ac 6=64E:@?D[ |2DD249FD6EED G@E6CD 2AAC@G65 A=2?D E@ 2F5:E E96 DE2E6 {68:D=2EFC6[ D4C2A E96 |rp$ 9:89 D49@@= 8C25F2E:@? >2?52E6 2?5 2==@H C:5692:=:?8 5C:G6CD E@ F?:@?:K6[ 3FE C6;64E65 AC@A@D2=D E@ =682=:K6 ADJ49656=:4 >FD9C@@>D 2?5 5@ 2H2J H:E9 E:AA65 H286D 7@C H@C<6CD]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • IPOs are back. Where are the women?

    [ad_1]

    Investors are pouring money into initial public offerings like it’s 2021, with this season alone unleashing several new tickers, including FIG, BLSH, and soon, STUB. For some, the surge is a welcome sign of renewed optimism after tariff-related chaos in the spring threatened a promised IPO revival. 

    But an analysis of recent IPO-related filings shows that women leaders are largely missing from the boards and executive teams at the vast majority of new public companies, despite years of calls for more diversity in corporate leadership. The data may even be an early signal of future losses for executive women, as DEI, already facing a backlash, is abandoned or sidelined, especially in the tech industry. 

    Damion Rallis, cofounder of board data firm Free Float Analytics, combed through information about 61 companies that filed IPO-related documents in the first two weeks of August. He found that nearly 88% of the firms (most of which were in tech) had only one or no women on their board of directors, while 93% had only one or no women in their C-suite. Rallis is now calling this the “Bro-PO market,” and said his findings were “crazy.”

    “We’ve given up our ideals. We’ve just given up,” he said on Free Float’s Business Pants podcast.   

    Only seven of the 61 companies Rallis examined had two or more women on their boards, while only four listed two or more women executives. In total, women represented only 12% of the 349 directors and 11% of 205 executives identified in the filings. Stubhub listed one female executive on its team of five, and one female director on a board of seven. Bullish listed two executive leaders, both men, and one woman on its six-person board. 

    For reference, women represent about 30% of board members at Russell 3000 companies, according to recent studies, and 29% of C-suite roles, according to a 2024 McKinsey survey.  

    In recent years, corporate boards have made gender and racial diversity a central focus of recruitment efforts, especially after Nasdaq issued a rule that said listed companies must disclose their board gender and diversity statistics. That directive was set to expand: Eventually, it would have imposed minimum diversity requirements or asked companies to explain why their boards weren’t diverse. However, that effort was shut down in late 2024 by a federal appeals court that decided Nasdaq had overstepped its statutory authority when it set the policy. 

    In 2020, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon declared that “IPOs are a pivotal moment for firms,” as he described his bank’s then-landmark pledge not to take companies public if their boards were entirely male. But the company abandoned that promise this year, citing “legal developments related to board diversity requirements,” my colleague Emma Hinchliffe reported in February. “We continue to believe that successful boards benefit from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and we will encourage them to take this approach,” Goldman told Fortune at the time. 

    The Goldman Sachs rollback was one of many widely seen as a response to a long-running war on “woke” corporate policies that’s now backed by President Trump.  

    Despite these policy shifts, most investors have come to expect companies to form diverse boards and C-suites as part of optimizing a leadership team. The bar is lower for “starter boards” of newly IPO’d companies, says Matt Moscardi, cofounder of Free Float Analytics. But he says he was still surprised that today’s fledgling public companies are not even nodding at market norms. Instead, they’re leaving out 50% of humanity. 

    “You’d expect them to look and say, ‘Well, you’re going to IPO, what do other publicly traded companies look like?’” Moscardi told Fortune, “and there is basically no effort to do that.” 

    Introducing the 2025 Fortune Global 500, the definitive ranking of the biggest companies in the world. Explore this year’s list.

    [ad_2]

    Lila MacLellan

    Source link

  • DiZoglio blasts legislative leaders in audit

    DiZoglio blasts legislative leaders in audit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Legislature lacks transparency and accountability in its dealings, according to a new state audit, which blasts legislative leaders for refusing to open up their books for the performance review.

    The audit, released Monday by Auditor Diana DiZoglio, faults the state House of Representatives and Senate for failing to conduct timely financial reviews of its spending, a lack of transparency in its procurement policies and a website that makes it difficult for the public to navigate, among other criticisms.

    But DiZoglio also leaned into House and Senate leaders for refusing to provide information her office requested for the audit, including tracking year-end budget spending, how they decide which major bills are brought up for a vote and whether the two chambers are following their own rules regarding non-disclosure agreements.

    “It is deeply concerning that legislative leaders have refused to cooperate with our office to help promote transparency and identify ways to improve service to the people of Massachusetts,” the Democrat said in a statement. “Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy and enable the people to participate in government as intended in our Constitution, in a system of checks and balances.”

    The audit comes as DiZoglio urges voters to approve Question 1, which if approved would force legislative leaders to open up their books for an independent review.

    Under current laws, the auditor has the power to examine “all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth” but the ballot question would expand those powers to specifically include the Legislature.

    The referendum was proposed by DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat and former state lawmaker, whose high-profile efforts to audit the House and Senate have been blocked by legislative leaders who argue the move is unconstitutional.

    The partial audit released on Monday found that the Senate and House didn’t ensure annual financial audits were completed, filed with required recipients, or made available to the public in a timely way, in an apparent violation of their own rules.

    The review also found that the Legislature’s procurement policies lack transparency, which auditors said limit the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable.

    The Massachusetts Legislature’s website also lacks content and is hard to navigate, compared to other state’s legislative bodies, which auditors said “hinders the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.”

    Other concerns flagged by auditors included a lack of details about how legislative leaders appoint committee chairpersons and other posts that bump up lawmaker’s prestige and compensation.

    Legislative leaders were asked to respond to the findings of the audit, but DiZoglio’s office said they declined.

    “The purported audit of the Legislature released by the Auditor today confirms only one thing: the Auditor has abandoned all pretext of faithfully performing her statutory responsibilities in favor of using her office for pure political self-promotion and electioneering,” House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a statement on Monday in response to the report.

    “The Auditor should instead be focusing on her statutorily mandated reviews, as she continues to underperform her predecessors in the completion of that important work,” he added.

    DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation.

    Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    DiZoglio has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in Legislature, which is continuously ranked as one of the least effective and least transparent legislative bodies in the country. It is also one of only four state Legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws, DiZoglio points out.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.

    A panel of six lawmakers who reviewed the proposal issued a report concluding that passage of Question 1 would “undermine the separation of powers between the branches of government.” The report included testimony from constitutional scholars and civics educators who oppose the move.

    Despite that, recent polls have shown voters strongly support Question 1 — one of five referendums on the Nov. 5 ballot — which hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Council debates mayor’s plan to appoint Lawrence School Committee members

    Council debates mayor’s plan to appoint Lawrence School Committee members

    [ad_1]

    LAWRENCE — A special meeting is scheduled Wednesday evening for city leaders to discuss changing the structure of the School Committee, allowing members to be appointed by the mayor.

    The committee is now made up of elected members with Mayor Brian DePena serving as its chairman.

    DePena proposed a home rule petition earlier this year to restructure the committee once Lawrence Public Schools leaves state receivership.

    Due to underperformance, Lawrence schools have been under state receivership since 2012 with the Lawrence Alliance for Education as its oversight board.

    Drafts of the home rule petition call for a 13-member hybrid/elected committee of six elected members, six appointed members, a nonvoting student member and the mayor, who would serve as chair.

    “The mayor shall appoint Committee members who represent the ethnic, racial and socioeconomic diversity of the city of Lawrence and its public school students,” according to a draft.

    The draft also said it is “highly recommended that the appointed membership will include professionals from the following fields; finance/accounting, law, engineering, education, law enforcement, athletics, and/or arts – this assuring the academic advancement of students and overall education system.”

    An eight-member ad hoc committee was organized to review the home rule petition and its specifications. The ad hoc committee is made up of three people from the mayor’s office, three School Committee members and two city councilors.

    School Committee member Myra Ortiz serves on the ad hoc committee. She said before any changes to the School Committee are made, the city needs to prepare its “transition plan” to formally exit state receivership.

    “How do we move forward?” she asked.

    Ortiz also said the intent of the mayor’s plan was that Lawrence Alliance for Education board members could be incorporated into the School Committee post-receivership.

    City Councilor Stephany Infante, who serves on the ad hoc committee, called it a “very frustrating process.”

    Infante and others commented on the ad hoc committee and proposed home rule petition at a City Council meeting Tuesday night,

    She said there was “back and forth” at the ad hoc committee meetings and their time was “very unproductive.”

    Luis Robles, an Abbott Street resident, described the ad hoc committee as “a disaster.”

    “Nothing of substance was debated,” said Robles, adding that the meetings lacked constructive dialogue.

    Kimberly Barry, president of the 1,500-member Lawrence Teachers Union, said the union believes in full democracy and puts its trust in an elected School Committee.

    School Committee member Lenin Roa urged councilors to approve the home rule petition. He said “barely anyone wants to run for School Committee positions.”

    City councilors previously received a petition signed by 120 people urging them to “Support an Elected School Committee.”

    “Converting the existing fully-elected School Committee to a majority-elected school board, as proposed by the mayor, would continue the unjust pattern of state receivership. It would strip parents, caregivers, and our entire community of a voice in how our schools are run,” according to the petition.

    The meeting Wednesday starts at 7 p.m. in council chambers at City Hall. The meeting can also be viewed on YouTube and the City Council’s Facebook page.

    Follow staff reporter Jill Harmacinski on Twitter/X @EagleTribJill.

    [ad_2]

    By Jill Harmacinski jharmacinski@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Methuen council taking another vote on Searles Estate

    Methuen council taking another vote on Searles Estate

    [ad_1]

    METHUEN — The City Council will likely vote on the purchase of the historic Searles Estate for the second time next month.

    The council voted against the purchase of the property for $3.25 million last week, which would typically mean the end of the proposed resolution. But after recent legal advice from City Solicitor Kenneth Rossetti, Chair Joel Faretra said he will bring the matter back for another vote at the council’s next meeting in September.

    City officials aim to preserve the historic site by acquiring the property from the Sisters of the Presentation of Mary. Those opposed have cited fiscal responsibility and said the city does not have a comprehensive plan for the aging estate.

    The Searles Estate encompasses 25 acres, with 19 available for purchase by the city. The estate is valued at $10 million. The acquisition would also include $1 million in artifacts.

    The vote Aug. 5, which left the community sharply divided, included two councilor absences and an abstention, leading to a potential conflict of interest.

    Only six of nine councilors voted. Faretra, Nicholas DiZoglio, Ronald Marsan and Allison Mary Saffie voted in favor while Neily Soto and Patricia Valley were opposed.

    Faretra said he was informed that the majority party can bring an item back for a vote, rather than just the prevailing side.

    Soto said preserving the estate is important but that it should be done through a public-private partnership which places less of a burden on taxpayers.

    Twelve potential buyers have looked at the estate over the years. One developer presented a plan that would demolish the estate and build apartments, according to the city.

    Sisters of the Presentation of Mary purchased the estate in 1957 to house Presentation of Mary Academy, which closed in 2020. Since then, the religious order has endeavored to find a buyer.

    The order was founded in France in 1796 and came to the United States in 1853, according to its website.

    The estate would likely need about $250,000 in annual maintenance, according to Chief Administrative & Financial Officer Maggie Duprey.

    The Methuen Historical Society has called the estate an “irreplaceable treasure” and urged the council and the community to support the purchase.

    The next council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 3 but that date will likely be adjusted due to the state primary elections, Faretra said.

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Healey urges lawmakers to return for special session

    Healey urges lawmakers to return for special session

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey wants state lawmakers to return to Beacon Hill to take up a multibillion-dollar economic development bill that failed to pass before the end of formal sessions last week.

    Lawmakers recessed early Thursday after concluding the formal session and pushing through bills dealing with housing, veterans and parental rights, but left dozens of major proposals on the table as they headed out the door to focus on their reelection campaigns.

    Healey said the economic development bond money and legislation are “extremely important” to supporting the state’s business industry and boosting its competitiveness. She urged lawmakers to “return as soon as possible” to take up the plan before the Dec. 31 end of the two-year session.

    ”This is absolutely essential for economic growth and development, to support critical economic sectors, and to protect our economy and businesses in the face of increasing competition from other states,” Healey, a first-term Democrat, said in a statement. “The people of Massachusetts deserve it and are counting on us.”

    The bill, a key plank of Healey’s legislative agenda, would set aside hundreds of millions of dollars in bonding and tax credits to boost the state’s competitiveness. It also would reauthorize the state’s life sciences initiative for another decade and make a parallel investment in climate technology.

    Responding to the governor’s demands, Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, issued a statement saying the Senate “is ready to return to work and pass this critical economic development bond authorization—and we are prepared to call a special formal session to get it done.”

    Last week, House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, said he hopes to revisit a stalled prescription drug bill after those measures failed to make it across the finish line last week.

    Other major pieces of legislation that failed to pass before the end of formal sessions included bills dealing with plans to improve hospital oversight and blunt the impact of climate change.

    Massachusetts was also the last state to adopt a budget, sending the $58 billion spending plan to Healey nearly a month after the July 1 beginning of the fiscal year.

    The bottleneck of major bills has led to finger-pointing and criticism of the Legislature’s Democratic leadership, whom Republicans and pundits say waited until the July 31 end of formal sessions to rush through major pieces of legislation.

    Lawmakers can still vote on bills during informal sessions after July 31, but they lack sufficient numbers to challenge any vetoes or amendments. What’s more, debate on legislation taken up during informal sessions can be blocked by objections from any lawmaker.

    But proposals that involve spending or borrowing money require roll call votes, where lawmakers register their individual votes. Those votes can only be held in a formal session.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Netanyahu’s coalition bickers over Gaza

    Netanyahu’s coalition bickers over Gaza

    [ad_1]

    Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brittle governing coalition isn’t anywhere near resolving its internal splits over how the Gaza Strip should be governed once Hamas has been crushed, and the situation is testing the patience of the country’s Western allies — including an increasingly exasperated United States.

    Judging by an ill-tempered security Cabinet meeting last week, which was an exceptionally rowdy affair even by the rambunctious standards of Israel’s politics, Netanyahu’s coalition — widely judged as the most right-wing in the country’s history — is fraying. And the sharp differences over Gaza’s fate aren’t helping.

    More of a no-holds-barred verbal brawl than a sober meeting at a moment of great national peril, last week’s security Cabinet had been summoned to agree on outlines for a “day-after” plan for Gaza, which the U.S. is ever more urgently demanding. But according to local media reports, as well as background briefings by officials, stark differences between the governing parties over a Gaza plan are exposing deeper underlying divides that are both ideological and personal.

    This, in turn, raises questions about just how much longer the country’s wartime unity government can hang together, especially as a protest movement calling for Netanyahu to quit is starting to flex its muscles.

    Ministers rounded on each other for much of the acrimonious meeting, with religious nationalists and hard-right leaders excoriating the Chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces Herzi Halevi, and taking potshots at a proposal offered by Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.

    Coming on the eve of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s arrival in Israel, where he’ll be pressing Netanyahu to start winding down military operations in Gaza and conform to U.S. expectations on the enclave’s postwar future, the brawl was especially poorly timed. It also augurs badly for any meeting of the minds on postwar Gaza governance between Israel and Washington — let alone with Israel’s Arab neighbors.

    The sharp-tongued bickering was initially sparked by Halevi disclosing he’d set up an internal army inquiry headed by former defense officials, probing the failings of Israel’s security services before the October 7 attacks by Hamas.

    Led by ministers Miri Regev, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition partners complained that holding an internal inquiry while fighting rages in Gaza is inappropriate and would distract from what should be the real focus — winning the war.

    But their anger was largely concentrated on the inclusion of former Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz — who oversaw the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza — in the inquiry team. They see Israel’s Gaza disengagement as the original sin that allowed Hamas to grow and become the force it has, able to launch attacks as devastating as the ones on October 7. They want the 2005 withdrawal reversed and Israel to annex part, or all, of Gaza, even discussing the possibility of Gazans “voluntarily” being resettled elsewhere — including the DR Congo.

    This clash, which saw some defense officials walk out in protest, merely added fuel to the fire over Gallant’s proposal that Palestinians unaffiliated with Hamas administer the enclave after the war. Under Gallant’s plan, there would be no Israeli resettlement of Gaza — which infuriated religious nationalists like Smotrich — however, the IDF would retain military control on the borders, and have the right to mount military operations inside Gaza when deemed necessary.

    “Gaza residents are Palestinian. Therefore, Palestinian bodies will be in charge, with the condition that there will be no hostile actions or threats against the State of Israel,” Gallant said last week. But for Smotrich, “Gallant’s ‘day after’ plan is a re-run of the ‘day before’ October 7.”

    Far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich walks with soldiers during a visit to Kibbutz Kfar Aza near the border with the Gaza Strip | Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP via Getty Images

    Scorned by the government’s hard right, the defense minister’s proposal is unlikely to cut it with the U.S. or with Israel’s Arab and Gulf neighbors either, as there would be no role for the Palestinian Authority (PA), which oversees the West Bank. U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration wants Gaza to be handed over to what it calls a “revitalized” PA, although it hasn’t detailed exactly what that means or the necessary steps for such a revamp.

    Netanyahu eventually broke up the Cabinet meeting after three hours of confrontational exchanges, insults and ministers swearing at each other, once again leaving Gaza’s postwar future unresolved in Israeli minds. And all this, just as the Biden administration redoubles its insistence on a serious and credible postwar plan that Arab nations can accept.

    The disastrous meeting also prompted three key centrists in the wartime government — Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisenkot and Yechiel Tropper of the National Unity government’s Blue and White faction — to skip a full meeting on Sunday, highlighting the growing tensions and coalition rifts.

    Tropper linked his boycott to the right-wing ministers assailing Halevi. He told national broadcaster Kan that he didn’t know “how long we will be in the government; I only know that we entered for the good of the country and our exit will also be related to the good of the country.”

    Gantz, a former defense minister and onetime chief of the General Staff, had led his centrists into Netanyahu’s government after October 7 for the sake of national unity. “There is a time for peace and a time for war. Now is a time for war,” he had said when accepting Netanyahu’s offer to join the war Cabinet.

    But Gantz’s popularity has risen dramatically since then, and he’s now seen as Netanyahu’s most likely challenger. So, if he chose to bolt from the government, it would increase the likelihood of an early election — and that’s something anti-Netanyahu activists are starting to demand once more. Until very recently, there was little appetite for demonstrations, with small turnouts of around just a few dozen to a few hundred people. However, rallies over the weekend saw several thousand participating, with protesters taking to the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, calling for the prime minister’s removal.

    So far, Netanyahu has been circumspect in outlining a postwar Gaza plan, mainly restricting himself to dismissing a role for the PA. And this has partly been due to his worry that disputes over Gaza’s postwar governance could prove fatal for his coalition. It looks like that may well turn out to be true.

    [ad_2]

    Jamie Dettmer

    Source link

  • Goldfinch community approved deployment on Base L2, GFI up 14%

    Goldfinch community approved deployment on Base L2, GFI up 14%

    [ad_1]

    Governance members agreed that launching Goldfinch’s defi loan service on Coinbase’s decentralized network would be beneficial and help to onboard more users.

    The community behind Goldfinch, a defi lender, reached quorum to deploy the protocol on Base, a layer-2 blockchain launched and backed by major crypto exchange Coinbase. Next, the project’s governance council will hold a soft vote before developers draft and audit the actual code for this update. 

    Finally, the council will activate Goldfinch on Base by shipping the deployment smart contract code through a multi-sig wallet. 

    The protocol’s native token GFI jumped 14% on Dec. 1 following the news, trading at $1.74 when this report was written.

    GFI price | Source: TradingView

    Before its approved launch on L2 Base, Goldfinch was exclusively available on Ethereum’s blockchain. However, the project’s co-founder Blake West, and engineering manager Greg Egan argued for expansion to a blockchain with cheaper transaction fees.

    From a business standpoint, we believe Base will continue to improve and Coinbase will expose more and more of their 100M+ user base to Base apps. Goldfinch can take advantage of this as a customer acquisition channel.

    Goldfinch on Base proposal

    Ethereum, while a long-standing pillar in the blockchain industry, is infamous for expensive gas fees. This high cost of moving assets on-chain was a stumbling block to greater adoption until the advent of scaling solutions like Base commonly known as L2s.

    L2s can handle transactions at far cheaper rates compared to Ethereum’s mainnet while retaining the transaction security synonymous with crypto’s biggest defi chain. Base in particular has garnered on-chain activity and climbed to over $300 million in total value locked since its launch by Coinbase on Aug. 9.

    This makes Base the only decentralized network released by an American publicly traded company and the third-largest layer-2 network according to DefiLlama at press time

    In other Goldfinch news, the project marked the complete repayment of its genesis loan issued to Fazz Financial.


    Follow Us on Google News

    [ad_2]

    Naga Avan-Nomayo

    Source link