Travaglini tells WBUR he wants to spend millions on stem cell research

Here is a transcript of Senate President Robert Travaglini's interview with WBUR.

Bob Oakes: Senate President Travaglini good morning and thanks very much for having us into your office.

Senate President Robert Travaglini: Good morning Robert. Happy holidays.

Oakes: Let me ask you first of all about your top priorities for the upcoming year, and how do they mesh with what we know of the House agenda and what we know of Governor-elect Deval Patrick's agenda?

Travaglini: Well for the last year and a half the Senate has been heavily involved in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of public higher education here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and we collectively have come to the conclusion that that's an area that is in need of significant infusion of revenue to maintain the competitiveness and the attractiveness that the Commonwealth presently experiences. So public higher education is a top priority here for the Senate and the continuation of the stem cell research discussion. I think it's time for the Commonwealth to make a decision as to whether or not we have a financial obligation to participate in that research and to contribute to that research. I've met with representatives from the Children's Hospital recently and some of the scientists who are doing significant work with sickle cell anemia and leukemia and they are indicating to me that we could potentially could realize a breakthrough in a very short period of time with some new revenues on the part of the Commonwealth which demonstrates quite frankly a partnership in this research. You may be aware that New Jersey just did a $10 million bump of revenue, the Governor Corzine in New Jersey just awarded, or signed legislation, that makes available $10 million specifically for that purpose. I think that's an action that the Commonwealth should take in the very near future.

Oakes: What kind of money would you be talking about to encourage stem cell research here in Massachusetts? What's the appropriate number here?

Travaglini: Well I don't want to cite a specific number. We've discussed it privately Robert, but it would be over five years and it would demonstrate that it's a continuous commitment by the Commonwealth. It's not going to be a one-shot deal or arrangement. I believe it should be over five years and it should be a significant number.

Oakes: Is it a billion dollars?

Travaglini: No, no, my God no. This year is going to be a difficult year financially, but the economy has stabilized and the revenue is not going to grow at a rate that we've experienced in the last few years. So that type of expansion, the type of expansion we're talking about is going to have to be limited and controlled. So, no I'm not talking in the billions, I'm talking in the millions of dollars and it would be spread out over five years.

Oakes: Hundreds of millions or less than that?

Travaglini: Less than that.

Oakes: And you don't want to be any more specific than that I take it?

Travaglini: Well you're getting me close to a number now and I've already said five years. If you're good at divisions, and I've already given you the millions, and its less than ... well, it would be between, oh I don't know, I'd say $40 and $60 million.

Oakes: When you say higher education in Massachusetts needs a shot in the arm what do you mean by that?

Travaglini: Well on two fronts. One, obviously the infrastructure on all of the campuses is in dire need of repair. We have a situation at UMass Boston with the garage, we have situations at the campus, the flagship out in Amherst, I think the infrastructure needs of the campuses has been overlooked for the last few years and its time to address them. It's also time to expand with the new types of research and the white-coat economy that we're starting to trend into where we should provide additional resources and enhance the stability of our faculty at all of the campuses across the Commonwealth and we should also give a shot to the community colleges as well. So I'm talking a lot of money here.

Oakes: What do you mean by a lot of money?

Travaglini: I'd say $75, $80 million over the course of the next four, five years as well.

Oakes: When you talk about the faculty one of the great concerns about University of Massachusetts faculty over the years has been that it's been tough to get a pay raise out of the legislature. Now there was a raise recently. Are you talking about making raises a more regular thing as opposed to once every few years?

Travaglini: No, raises are just a very small part of this. I think the equipment that they need, the laboratories that they have, the environment that we create for the students, it's all equally as significant as the morale and the pay level of our faculties. If you want a first-class public higher-education system you have to invest in it and you have to do it over time. That's what I'm talking about.

Oakes: There are some suggestions that the universities need more fiscal autonomy in that they should be allowed to keep the tuition money that the students pay instead of the money going back to the general fund and then the legislature giving it back to the schools or some fraction of it back to the schools. Where are you on that?

Travaglini: It's clear to me that you've done your homework because that's the central piece of what the Senate is recommending, that there is tuition retention in all of the campuses and I also believe that we should merge the tuition and fees all into one category because when the tuition, or the fees is higher than the tuition, it's a little bit misleading when we give scholarships to young students who are going to the school and then their parents find out that the fees are higher than the tuition. But that's a great point, we feel that tuition retention and greater autonomy by the campuses is a good thing if it's monitored by the Board of Trustees and it's packaged in the right way.

Oakes: Will there be more financial aid for Massachusetts students of more modest or moderate means so more kids, worthy kids, can afford to go?

Travaglini: Well this has been a discussion ongoing with the Board of Higher Education and with the Board of Trustees. We've had internal discussions in here relative to how we can help those middle class, working families who seem to be just over the threshold of being considered for previous financial assistance. There's going to be an attempt to address that portion of the population in our deliberations coming up in 2007.

Oakes: Since my opening question we talked about Deval Patrick's agenda. Let me ask you, and we're talking about money, let me ask you one question about a topic he raised during the campaign, and that is trying to ease the property tax burden, the local property tax burden on the residents of Massachusetts cities and towns. Does the money exist in the coming year for the legislature to increase local aid in some way or find some other way to ease the property tax burden in local communities?

Travaglini: It's a little disappointing Robert that in this discussion the fact that we increased local aid significantly, to the tune of 15 to 17 percent last year and held harmless the municipalities during the entire fiscal crisis of three and four years ago. We have given significant aid to the municipalities across the Commonwealth and there continues to be a need. What has to occur is there has got to be greater fiscal responsibility on the part of municipalities to control their spending as it relates to the financial growth we're experiencing in the economy. You can have growth in the economy at 3.5 percent and have increases in local municipal spending of 11 and 12 percent. You've got to renegotiate some of these collective bargaining agreements, some of these other outstanding agreements with the unions and other officials that are more in tune with the times. And everybody I believe has to give a little. If the suggestion is that there is new revenue available for additional property relief to the citizens of the Commonwealth, I think that's going to be hard to demonstrate.

Oakes: When you use the word disappointed, you're disappointed that the cities and towns haven't reigned it in.

Travaglini: Well I'm disappointed that we went through great efforts, the House, the Senate, and the Romney administration, to increase and to restore the levels of fiscal assistance that we had to alter in 2003 as the result of a recession, a terrorist attack, and the collapse of the stock market. OK? It wasn't due to fiscal mismanagement up here on the Hill, contrary to what some people might suggest. It was due to three conditions which were beyond our control. Last year, if you look at the budget objectively, and you see the restoration of those levels of financial assistance, I mean they're all close to or even beyond in some instances, the levels of pre-911.

Were you annoyed by Deval Patrick's claim during the campaign that there were hundreds of millions of dollars in spending on Beacon Hill that were not necessary, that he could locate that you apparently couldn't and that he would save in some way to spend in other areas that were of higher priority. Were you annoyed by that?

No, no, I wasn't annoyed by that. Look, during the course of a campaign there are a number of comments that are made by all of the candidates who are aspiring to win the election and during the course of that campaign there were statements that were made that may not be as factual. The candidates may not have the knowledge that we do internally when you're dealing with four budgets in a row and you know the situation in a fiscal snapshot of the Commonwealth's condition. The govenor-elect has suggested to me, and the Senate will give him every opportunity and be as helpful as possible, as we were to the Romney administration during their transition. We gave them plenty of opportunity to get some traction, to fill their positions in the cabinet, and to get a sense of what's going on in the Commonwealth, and to prioritize the issues that they highlighted during the course of the campaign and that's what we stand ready to do. The beauty of the Senate's position is we go last in these budget deliberations so we're privy to the most up-to-date information, we have the most numbers coming from the Department of Revenue, and we have two other budgets to review: House One, that is submitted by the governor, and the House budget that is the response to House One. And then it's the Senate's responsibility to review both of those documents, and try to take what's good in both and merge it with what we feel is appropriate.

Oakes: The Patrick transition -- has there been enough consultation and input from lawmakers as you see it so far?

Travaglini: Yes, I believe there has been. There have been a number of conversation between the governor-elect, myself, and the speaker. And in the working organizations that he's set up right underneath his transition team, those working committees, a number of legislators have been given the opportunity to participate in those discussions and I'm confident that, look, this is a collaborative effort, this is a partnership, and this will all come together very nicely after the first of year once we get in gear and we get about the people's business.

Oakes: So do you anticipate a collaborative or a combative relationship with the governor-elect when he becomes governor.

Travaglini: I am consistent with the approach that I have brought to this position and that the Senate has established over the last four years. We anticipate that this will be a collaborative, that we want to partner, and that we will obliviously highlight the issues that we feel strongly about and hopefully they'll be part of the final product of the House, Senate, and executive deliberations.

Oakes: You didn't seem to have much difficulty working with Governor Romney over the Romney years. You were fairly closely aligned on a number of issues including health care, economic stimulus, not to mention the fact that with the overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature, if Governor Romney vetoed something it usually was irrelevant. What are the main issues before the state and the Senate where a Democratic governor will be an advantage.

Travaglini: Well this is the first time that I'm experiencing these conditions Robert in my career as an elected official in my career up here on the Hill. Since I arrived there's always been a Republican governor. So to the extent that it alters the political terrain, I have yet to experience, but I have had conversations with the governor-elect and I'm excited about the potential that his candidacy and his election brings now to the Hill. This should be a natural blending of ideals. I believe that Speaker DeMaisi believes strongly, as I do, that there are outstanding issues that have to be dealt with quickly and the three of us realize how important it is to achieve some sort of legislative victory early in the session to demonstrate that we can work together, we will pass legislation that the people will feel good about, and we will conduct their business in their absence in a way that they find acceptable and professional.

Oakes: Can you pick one piece of legislation you hope to launch right off the beginning, when the new legislative season begins and after the governor comes to office?

Travaglini: Well I'd like to restore some of the 9C cuts the Romney administration has made in the twilight of their tenure this year during the legislative session. I think we should look quickly at the stem cell research and the role that we have and make a determination between higher education and early education how we're going to appropriate the revenues that are available for those two purposes.

Oakes: Respond, if you would, to people who voiced concern that Deval Patrick will be a rubber stamp for the legislature so that the legislature can pretty much do whatever it wants.

Travaglini: I don't think that Deval Patrick is going to be a rubber stamp. He brings a fresh outlook to Beacon Hill, he has a mandate that was demonstrated in the final election in November, and he has a set of priorities that has been identified during the course of campaign that he feels very strongly about. To the extent that the Senate and the House can agree based on the availability of revenue to implement those new proposals remains to be defined, but I'm confident we can do it.

Oakes: Given that we've talked about some things that require spending and given the fact that you've already acknowledged that the budget situation going into the new year is fairly tight, do the revenues exist to cover these items? Will you be forced to make cuts in other areas and if so where?

Travaglini: We're obviously all hoping for job creation, company expansions, and the continuation of a healthy economy, but putting those three things aside and if none of those three components materialize, we might have a little bit of a problem trying to expand upon what we presently fund. I'm pretty confident right now that we can continue the level of funding that we did last year and all the programs that we view as critical to the well-being of the citizens of the Commonwealth, but to expand upon them and to create new programs will be a difficult task but it will be the administration that first offers the platelet and the model for us to review and either to accept and to amend, or to reject.

Oakes: What about increasing revenues as an option? For example, do you foresee the legislature passing an expansion of gambling in this legislative session? Do you think slot machines are in Massachusetts' future?

Travaglini: I don't know. I don't know. The Senate last year voted in an affirmative way as it relates to the expansion of gambling in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The House didn't go along with that recommendation. The governor-elect has indicated a willingness to objectively review any proposals that generate new revenues for the Commonwealth. Well I suspect that there'll be a discussion at some point during the legislative session and in what direction it goes in remains to be determined.

Oakes: Do you think the Senate is poised to pass slot machines, again? Would you champion slot machines?

Travaglini: I wouldn't be the one that would champion the slot machines. Consistent with the approach that I bring to this position, I would encourage the senators to vote how they feel about the issue. They did that last year. They're on record already, I don't believe that it's appropriate to take repetitive actions, but we stand prepared to review any proposal that generates new revenues for the Commonwealth in a way that the majority of the senators that I serve with would be supportive of.

Oakes: Is there another revenue-generating option that comes to mind?

Travaglini: There's no appetite for it, but you seem to be dancing around the 't' word. I don't mind saying it, it's taxes, I mean taxes generate new revenue, but I don't believe there's an appetite here in this party that at least I can see that there's a desire to increase taxes.

Oakes: OK, let me ask you about another revenue-raising measure suggested by Governor-elect Patrick and the Patrick transition team, and that is allowing local communities, giving local communities the option to impose local-option taxes. For example, taxes on meals, or a tax on a hotel room. You think the legislature has an appetite to allow local communities to have that authority?

Travaglini: If the administration wants to offer that in the form of legislation there's a process where it goes through the committee hearings and full public hearings and then a recommendation would be made to the full body. Personally, I don't believe, I believe it falls in the category of what I just described to you -- that there's no appetite to do taxes here in the Senate. If we were able to hold the line quite frankly during difficult fiscal times and now we've experienced at least to some degree some financial recovery, I'm not sure this is the appropriate move to make at this time.

Oakes: Let me move on to another issue, and let me ask you about this coming January 2. You called for a vote on the gay marriage amendment and you voted against adjourning the Constitutional Convention without a vote, but the legislature did adjourn without a vote at the last ConCon. Is the gay marriage issue dead at this point? What do you think is going to happen on Jan. 2 when the Constitutional Convention meets again?

Travaglini: I don't know. I mean, consistent with my performance as the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, my main purpose is to maintain calm, maintain control, and to reach consensus, and to allow everybody the opportunity to offer their opinions and their insight on the issue and to vote their conscious. I don't believe on an issue of this nature that anyone can be influenced one way or another. This vote will be based on personal beliefs. I do believe however in my own personal and political, professional view, that a vote is the appropriate act to take on the measure one way or another.

Oakes: Can you predict whether or not you think that vote will take place?

Travaglini: I don't like to make predictions. I mean, mine is a responsibility of conducting the proceedings and I don't want my personal viewpoints influencing or even suggesting influencing the actions of the convention.

Oakes: What's your reaction to the law suit that's been filed on this issue, trying to force the legislature to take a vote?

Travaglini: Everybody is exercising their rights during this discussion and that's the way its been since day one and my suspicion is that's the way it's going to continue to be. I believe that this discussion is going to go on for quite some time, even a lot longer than you or I staying in this business.

Oakes: Senate President Robert Travaglini, thanks for having us in, look forward to talking to you again as the year goes on.