To the editor:
Two things have caught my attention as we head to the end of the 2024 legislative session: the retirement of state Sen. Marc Pacheco and the privatization of tax collection and resident parking in the City of Lynn.
These are connected because Sen. Pacheco is the author of the Pacheco Law that was passed to address the process by which more 36 Commonwealth operations were privatized in a three-year period under Republican Gov. William Weld. This law laid out specific steps and tests that must be met prior to privatization in order to ensure that it was in the best interest of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. The tests are:
- Agencies seeking to contract out a service must prove not only that the move would save money, but that it would save money even if state employees were to work in the “most cost-efficient manner.”
- Firms cannot win business if they will pay less than the lowest amount the state pays its employees for similar services.
- Every privatization contract must contain provisions requiring the contractor to offer positions to qualified regular employees of the agency whose state employment is terminated because of the privatization contract.
- The contractor must add lost tax revenues to the cost of the bid if any work is to be performed outside Massachusetts.
- Private bids must also include estimated costs of monitoring contractor performance.
- Public employees have the opportunity to submit bids to keep the work in-house and “the agency shall provide adequate resources for the purpose of encouraging and assisting present agency employees to organize and submit a bid to provide the subject services.”
The City of Lynn apparently “privatized” several municipal functions in fiscal year 2023 and I wonder if Lynn elected officials are even aware of this excellent outline of best practices for the privatization of services and if they applied any of the steps above to move our tax collection and resident-parking system to a third-party vendor or privatize the services.
We now mail our tax payments to a private unidentified third party at a Boston Post Office box. We have no idea who or what firm now has access to our personal financial information, i.e. our checking accounts. Prior to last fiscal year, tax collection seemed to be a fairly seamless and safe process through the Collector’s Office, which leads to the question — Why was this change instituted?
The second area of privatization is in the area of resident parking. Now, through technology provided by an unidentified third party, you must submit personal information through a system that is difficult to work with even for the most tech savvy while expending a great deal of time — all for the privilege of paying for something that was once a service with no fee attached. You now must pay for a resident permit.
The introduction of a virtual system does not allow you to easily identify a car that does not have a resident permit, limiting your ability to request enforcement. Calling the Parking Office or the Police Department only to find the vehicle in question is in the system as a resident is wasting your time and their time.
The lack of a paper permit means that you must log into the system for even the most casual of visitors and tradespeople working at your home, and there is no guarantee the system will update in time to record the visit.
Finally, we are being told that the enforcement of the system will be through a Google Earth-style technology with a vehicle driving around the area recording your car’s location, likely storing that information. What are the parameters for the storage of the vehicle-tracking information, will it be available to law enforcement, available through a Freedom of Information Act request, etc.?
The solution to the resident-parking program is not to enter into a third-party contract that likely would not meet the parameters of the best practices laid out in the Pacheco Law. The solution is to maintain the low-tech system and invest in enforcement.
Sen. Pacheco laid out the best practices for the privatization of the Commonwealth’s functions and the City of Lynn would do well to use these practices while adding another step, a robust public process including ward meetings, mailings, and conversation with those affected. I hope Sen. Pacheco leaves state government knowing he had a positive impact on the way the Commonwealth of Massachusetts conducts business.
Mary Clutchey
Lynn
