Using a bully pulpit to protect consumers

How did you wind up with the job?

I've been interested in this particular position from the time that Governor Patrick became governor. It's very consistent with my entire background as someone who has been involved with consumer advocacy and business regulation. When the opening came about, we all agreed this was a very logical and good fit.

Is there anyone you can turn to for advice?

I worked in the office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation under Paula Gold as assistant secretary many years ago. For eight years, I was the chief of the Public Protection Bureau under [former state Attorney General] Scott Harshbarger. After that I was director of the Federal Trade Commission's Northeast regional office. So, issues involving consumer law, competition, and business regulation are very familiar to me. It isn't that I don't need advice, and I certainly do welcome it.

What changes do you want to make?

We want to raise the profile of this office. During a recession, it's really important for government to be vigilant in protecting the interests of consumers. Businesses cut corners, there are scams. We want to make sure that Massachusetts consumers know that we are going to use the bully pulpit to ensure that the marketplace is fair for consumers and fair for businesses. In terms of issues, foreclosures in the real estate market continue to grow. There's been some very good work over the past couple years that has gone on in the Division of Banks and in this undersecretary's office in assisting consumers to avoid foreclosures, or to land more softly than they might otherwise, and we definitely want to continue that. We want to continue to bring lenders and consumers together so they can work out problematic mortgage situations so people can stay in their homes.

Given the current financial crisis, are there additional things the Division of Banks needs to do to make sure financial institutions in Massachusetts are sound?

Massachusetts-chartered banks are generally in good condition. We have a well capitalized system where lending was, for the most part, done prudently. We also have jurisdiction over those mortgage companies and brokers and they are doing audits of those companies. We just issued a cease-and-desist order to a mortgage company in Dorchester.

You now oversee the State Racing Commission. Have you ever bet on horses?

No comment.

Will you be involved in the debate over bringing slot machines and casinos to Massachusetts?

If it involves the State Racing Commission, we will certainly be attentive to those issues and looking at them with careful scrutiny - and seeking advice and consultation - just as we would with any other issue.

You also oversee the Division of Insurance. How well is that agency performing?

I think the program of managed competition [in auto insurance] that we have adopted here in Massachusetts is a great benefit to consumers. We've seen a reduction in auto rates. We're attracting new companies to the state.

Are there any flaws that need to be fixed?For instance, some companies that were already operating in Massachusetts complain that the rules are unfair because new entrants aren't immediately required to take on high-risk drivers.

In any deregulation there are going to be some challenges. The big challenge is how to attract new competitors to give people more choice. So it's a balance. You can't attract competitors if they are going to come in disadvantaged as soon as they come in the door. I would expect that, over time, if there are any disadvantages to existing firms, those would fade away.

Another agency under your watch is Division of Cable and Telecommunications. I've long heard people complain they don't have much choice for cable, phone, or Internet service.

Our jurisdiction has limitations in that arena. Personally, I would probably agree that we need more competition, but that is not something the state can wave a magic wand and do something about. That said, we need to be pretty vigilant about the conduct of cable and telecommunications companies that do enjoy monopoly positions. If there are major issues - in terms of service, advertising, the way programs are packaged - then I think we are in a position to talk to the federal government and to facilitate complaints.

What's your view of the professional licensing boards? The traditional criticism against those types of agencies is that they mainly try to keep out competitors rather than policing their own members.

I've heard that criticism for decades. One of the things we did many years ago was a review to determine whether the way they were operating was injurious to competition in the marketplace, and maybe it is time to take a fresh look at that. But there is a balance here. There is a reason why these boards were created. We want to make sure that people are qualified before they do certain kinds of work.

I didn't ask you about the Division of Standards, which is also under your watch. Are there some key issues that agency needs to take on?

Item pricing [at stores] is tremendously important. I think we just saw in the news there was an issue with respect to CVS, which is a company we have fined in the past and we're looking at a report that was just issued concerning further alleged violations of the item pricing law. Especially in this economic climate, consumers have a right to know the right price of an item. And there can't be a discrepancy between what it says on the shelf and what you're charged at the cash register. And frankly, if we are seeing repeat offenders, we may need tougher legislation, we may need to increase fines.