Candidate Q&A: Katherine Clark

This is the first in a series of Melrose Patch Q&As with candidates seeking either the state Senate seat or state representative seat up for grabs in this fall's election.

Name: Katherine Clark
Party Affiliation: Democrat
Candidate For: Senate seat representing Middlesex and Essex (Melrose, Stoneham, Malden, Wakefield, Reading and Lynnfield)
Challengers: Mike Day (D), Craig Spadafora (R)
Age: 47
Where you live and how long you've lived there: Melrose, 10 years
Family: Married with three sons, ages 13, 10 and 8
Current occupation and former occupations: Currently State Representative  for the 32nd Middlesex District — representing Melrose and Wakefield Precincts 3-6 — and an attorney. Formerly chief of the policy division at the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.

Melrose Patch: You've been a state representative since 2008. Why make a run for state Senate after two years in the House? Did an opportunity open up with Richard Tisei (current state Senator for Middlesex and Essex) leaving as a candidate for lieutenant governor?

Clark: An opportunity did open up with Richard Tisei deciding to leave the seat. The reason I decided to run for it was that it is a chance to be one of 40 voices and really have a larger voice for our communities in this district to influence statewide policy. I think we've been able to do a lot of good common sense reforms and really move things forward for our district in extremely difficult economic times. This is a chance to just have a greater influence on policy and legislation and try and help move our district into a place that when we do have economic recovery, we're going to be in the best position possible.

Melrose Patch: Your head is probably still swimming about this, let's get right into casinos. When you first ran for state representative, you expressed concerns about casinos as a possible form of regressive taxation that comes with an increase in crime and in compulsive gambling, but said you were keeping an open mind about it, particularly after the Wampanoag Tribe received their federal recognition, so they could open a casino that the state wouldn't see any revenues from. One of your first votes once you got the House — you were there two second and the casinos were on the table —you voted against the casino bill, citing local aid as the reason you were voting against that. When it came up again this year, you voted for it this time. Two part question: can you explain what changed in terms of the local aid picture between the last casino bill and this casino bill, and then, what did you vote on the compromise bill and what are your thoughts about right now with the standoff?

Clark: You're exactly right. When I ran for state representative, one of the criteria I needed to see to feel comfortable was that local aid would be preserved or hopefully increased if we were going to go to expanded gaming in Massachusetts. The bill that was proposed in 2008, I didn't have a lot of time to gather information on that, but I met with the governor, I met with economic development people in the administration and I met with some legislative leaders on it. I could not find any guarantees that there would be protections for local aid if the lottery (revenues) were to really fall if we had casinos in Massachusetts. So I did not vote for it in 2008, especially because the way it procedurally came to the House, there was no chance to do any kind of amendments at all. It was really an up-or-down vote. I didn't feel that I could do that and sort of live up to what I had said I would do on the campaign trail.

Fast forward two years, we had the economy fall out from under us. We need jobs of all types, whether they are jobs in casinos, high tech jobs, manufacturing jobs, professional services and I think the construction industry has been hit hard. Obviously, building casinos would be a short-term improvement in that, not a long-term improvement, but they do create jobs. Most important, for me, was looking at the bill that came before the House, it's almost all aimed at local aid. I was able to get an amendment in there around education that said that any revenues that came in would have to be in addition to what the state was currently spending. I didn't want any sleight of hand where the state says, 'Oh, we have a new revenue source, let's bring down what we're expending into Chapter 70 for school funding.' Once that amendment was adopted — that amendment is still in the bill, it survived the conference committee — and just looking at the economy overall, and the fact that spending went up, I think, 5.6 percent for Massachusetts residents during this recession in Rhode Island and Connecticut casinos. Those were the factors that really got me to a 'yes' on this particular bill.

I did vote for the conference committee (bill). I think that they tried to come up with an agreement. Obviously, it's one that the governor is still is at least publicly stating he is not going to support. So we will see where the issue ends up. I think the issue of slots is one that is controversial and it provides quick revenue and I'm hoping some quick relief for local communities, but it is not long-term, it will not create as many jobs as a destination casino. We'll just have to wait and see what the governor's next move is and whether the Legislature will come back in to help address it and move the issue on.

Melrose Patch: Speaking of revenue: as the state has scrambled to balance the budget in the face of a fiscal crisis unseen since the Great Depression, voters had to swallow an increase in the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent and the lifting of certain sales tax exemptions, such as on alcohol and on meals. Now, this November voters will likely have the chance, in the form of a ballot question, to slash the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. Do you support rolling back the sales tax to 3 percent and if not 3 percent, some other figure? And if not now, would you be open to that later?

Clark: I do not support rolling back the sales tax at this particular point in our recovery. I think right now we are still not stable. Revenues, we're seeing slight ticks up, but we haven't seen the growth that we need to see. Still, unemployment is hovering around 9 percent. I do not believe it is the time for the draconian cuts that would have to come. We've already cut $9 billion out of our state budget. I think you can look at almost every aspect of the sort of safety net the government provides, especially to people who have disabilities or mental health issues. We have really devastated a lot of those programs. To lower the sales tax now, before we're seeing increases in revenues … nobody likes to vote to raise taxes. I don't like to pay increased taxes as a homeowner and as a mom of three boys that still need a lot of things. I don't like to pay them, I don't like to vote for them, but I thought that as a fiscal steward of the state as a state representative, it was what was presented to us and to really try and protect our local services, I felt it was a necessary vote. If you look at the information coming out of the Department of Revenue, the alcohol and sales tax increases are really the only things that are letting us hold on. For us to take those away at this time I think would be so devastating.

We're going to have a very difficult budget next year no matter what as federal stimulus money starts to disappear. I just think it would be so destabilizing at this point and time and so crushing to some of the services that people need, especially vulnerable people like our seniors, like the disabled, that I don't support it. If we have a recovery and I think in Massachusetts, there's a report out this week that we're in sort of one of the best positions in the country, and that's the work that I've been trying to do. Let's put together the foundation so when a recovery does come, Massachusetts is poised to grow, create jobs and increase our revenues. If that happens we can revisit tax cuts, tax policy, the income tax that the voters voted on and was never rolled back. All those things are back on the table. But at this time, at this point in our recovery,  I won't support rolling them back.

Melrose Patch: This year, the House indefinitely delayed by an 83-75 vote a proposal to require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts. The amendment prohibits the proposal from taking effect until the state office of Health and Human Services studies its impact on the state's economy and a new bill to require the verification is filed and approved. Can you explain your vote on this amendment and your thoughts on how the state can tackle the thorny issue of illegal immigration?

Clark: I think that the state, we need help from the federal government in coming up with comprehensive immigration reform. That's the starting place and I think that's clear from everything that' going on across the nation. It is long overdue at the federal level. So that's the first place. But right now we are in a fiscal crisis, we are cutting state services everywhere and I think this amendment was really speaking to a frustration out there that if I were doing everything right and playing by the rules and getting less and less services, how come some people are getting services that they may not be entitled to? Right now and having worked in human services and having done these screens myself, illegal immigrants are not entitled to most public services. There are some exceptions for emergency medical, but what we think of as the cash benefits, as your traditional welfare, food stamps, subsidized child care, all those types of programs, they are not eligible for. There are already screens and protections put in place to protect against them getting that.

Why I did not vote for this particular amendment is that this particular system was tried by Colorado and implemented years prior. They are $3.2 million into it and they haven't seen any savings. So, if we show a need to have more and better screening for public benefits, I could support that. But at this time when we have so few resources to spend, I didn't want to spend money scoring political points around the immigration issue that wasn't really going to help the problem. I do believe that if you're not here legally, you're not entitled to public benefits and you shouldn't be receiving them.

Melrose Patch: On health care: this month, Harvard Pilgrim struck a deal with state regulators to voluntarily limit its insurance rate increases for individuals and small businesses. This is the latest development, starting in April when the state insurance commissioner announced he was rejecting the premium increases the industry proposed for small businesses with up to 50 employees, which he deemed excessive, followed by the state Division of Insurance appeals board ruling against the Patrick administration in favor of Harvard Pilgrim. Now we're at this point where they've struck this deal. As a legislator, is this a way to prevent health insurance costs from climbing higher and higher, or is this only a temporary stop gap? What can the Legislature do to help control health care costs?

Clark: This has been one of my priorities of this session is really a focus on small business health insurance premiums. I hear it everywhere I go, that it is unsustainable to have 30, 40, 50 percent increases… the highest I heard was two weeks ago, a small company with six employees had a 68 percent increase. These are just increases that businesses cannot handle. These are businesses that are trying to provide and do the right thing by their employees by giving them benefits. We have to support small businesses as part of our economic recovery. I think it's critical. What we just did in the House is something I've been working with the Retailers Association on and some other small business advocacy groups about letting small businesses pool. A lot of time people are under the belief that when you buy through local chamber (of commerces), you're actually buying into a pool. But the chambers just act as a broker for small business insurance. We actually outlawed it so small businesses could not pool back in the late 1990s. So we just changed that. That goes before the governor now and I'm hoping that we get some short-term relief.

What we're looking at in the Legislature, as far as long-term relief, I think we have to look at changing payments, going from a fee-for-service to a more of a global payment. I think there's a lot of good work being done in the different health care committees on that and that's work that needs to be continued and stepped up. I think what we've done this session is give some potential short-term relief. There's some new products from the Connector Board for small businesses; we're hoping the pooling might put some immediate relief out there; but until we really change the way we do payments in the state … we've done a great job of insuring a large portion of our population and really growing that with health care reform, but to make that whole system that the state can continue to afford to provide, we have to get at lowering costs. I think the global payment system and moving towards that direction and keeping the pressure on that to keep going will be the long-term solution.

Melrose Patch: The final state education bill that passed earlier this year — you ended up voting against it, citing concerns that it amounted to an unfunded mandate and about a lack of a streamlined collective bargaining process for teachers fired in underperforming districts. Your thoughts on that legislation and why you ultimately voted against it?

Clark: I voted against the bill primarily because what I saw were estimates of $90-120 million of unfunded additional mandates on local communities, which is something that I thought they couldn't sustain. I understand very well the pressures to chase any federal money that would come in for the state. I think we potentially have $250 million that we could gain and I hope we do. But that money is also for two years, if we got the full funding. Whatever system we build within our laws, we will have to fund and pay for a far longer period of time than that money. When I looked at that system, I did not think that was something our local communities may be able to support or was the best use of our money at this particular time. I think we have a role for charter schools in our public education system, but I also think that we have to be careful that whatever we do around education reform, 96 percent of the kids in our public schools are in traditional, non-charter public schools and that we're doing something that will benefit all of those kids, as well as children whose parents choose to put them in a charter school.

I think also with the education reform, that sort of the philosophy, the base of it was that underperforming schools are directly correlated to underperforming teachers. I think you've seen in Rhode Island this sort of wholesale firing, the few places where it has happened already, it hasn't been very successful. Because I think that while there may be underperforming individual teachers in any given school, as a whole we want our experienced, quality teachers working with kids who may have the most challenges. I don't want to set up a system where if you go to an underperforming school to try and make a difference, to try and share what you have in education, that you go there with the exact feeling that 'any time I could be let go for no other reason other than that I'm in an underperforming school.' I think we know that most schools that are so-called failing schools are failing because their students are very poor. That's the number one reason for failing schools — poverty — and I think we have to take a comprehensive look at supporting those schools through mental health supports, guidance counselors, extended days, extended year. Those are the things we know make a difference in underperforming schools. Saying we can solve it by wholesale firing of teachers without regard to their individual performance was not a philosophy that I thought supported increasing quality education for kids that come to school facing many challenges.

Melrose Patch: Speaking of education, what's your position on the state education board voting to adopt the national academic standards in lieu of the state's own standards?

Clark: I think that the national standards will not impact Massachusetts as much as some other states. I think some other states really stand to benefit by raising up their standards. We already have some of the top standards in the country and we also consistently perform number one in the nation in student evaluation and performance. So, we're in a good position compared to many other states. My concern with the national standards for Massachusetts is whether this 15 percent flexibility they leave states be enough flexibility for us to address student achievement as we see necessary. So, if we want to move towards more science, more rigorous mathematics, will we be allowed to do that?

My second concern is will we also try and change curriculum to meet national standards that may not be better than what we already have and push more costs on to local communities to make those curriculum adjustments, to change textbooks. That, I would say, is not a good use of our money at this time, since we have curriculum frameworks — while not perfect — that are aligned with our standardized testing and standards now, and those are the top in the country. I don't want to see us spend our scarce resources changing curriculum to meet a national standard that might not really have improvement for our students.

Melrose Patch: The stock answer for any legislator — not that it's not honest — is when asked about their main priority or concern on Beacon Hill, they always say the budget and specifically local aid. Besides the budget and local aid, what would be your main priority if you were elected to the Senate?

Clark: Job creation. Without a doubt. That's what we need in Massachusetts right now. How do we set up our entire system to support creating jobs here? I think we have taken some good steps this session and we need to keep our eye on that and keep that a priority going forward. Whether that's the small business insurance we discussed; whether that is education, especially looking at our higher ed; or whether that is something that I've been working something very hard on — tax credit transparency.

We finally got it in the budget this year; it's something I've been working on with a handful of legislators since I first came in. We cannot manage what we can't measure around tax credits, and we spend hundreds of millions of dollars. If they are creating jobs and keeping employers here, great — maybe we need to increase those. But I have the feeling that a lot of them have become outdated and we need to take that money and put it places where we know it could work and where it could create jobs. So I think that those are the priorities I've been working on, really trying to make the whole budget more transparent, but especially around the tax credits. I think we can create some jobs by looking at what incentives we offer, discontinuing the ones that are obsolete and trying to think about different ways we can really support business and economic development in Massachusetts.