Consider the following scenario: A successful business leader is chosen by an entrepreneurial governor to take over the part of state government responsible for the procurement of technology. I think it is fair to say nearly all of us would assume that this business leader would favor policies that support Massachusetts businesses, right? That would be a fair assumption, but here is the hitch: the businessman, prior to accepting the state position, helped found a company that is trying to make money by undermining the commercial model that is a basis for many of our State's most important industries. Worse yet, this company continued to compensate the now high-level government executive while he was in state service and even paid for the Jaguar he drove to work in every day. Soon after taking office, the businessman worked to change administrative procedures to allow his agency to select technology without competitive bidding with the explicit goal of favoring the technology model his business was based on.
You might think that such an official might change his ways after getting his hand slapped a time or two. But that hasn't happened here. He has twice sought legislative authority to select software technology for the State without open competitive bids; and in both cases these requests have been rejected. Recently, after announcing that he would leave office, he delivered the parting blow – yet another unilateral change to the State's procurement guideline that would explicitly favor products aligned with his old company's business model. He provided just two weeks for public comment on the new proposal. The new policy could cost the State millions of dollars in acquisition, training and other costs, but there has been no disclosure of these costs and no coherent analysis of the impact on the Commonwealth and our local software community.
Sound far fetched? That's the current business plan of the Secretary of A&F in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. Can't happen you say? Well it can in Massachusetts, particularly if the Governor is busy worrying about whether to run for President instead of paying attention to his day job.
What's going on here? Most computer technology and software is developed through good, old-fashioned research and development by real people who are paid real wages and receive benefits from upstanding employers. That technology is licensed and sold to customers like me and you and we pay for it to help fund the research, development and other expenses. High technology research and development is expensive and the commercial model is incredibly important for the Massachusetts economy. (Our institutions of higher learning also play a role in this ecosystem through their research and development of technology that is licensed and sold to commercial entities).
The broader underlying business model is a critical component of almost all our growth sectors. Whether it's life sciences, computer technology, or nano-technology, our economy, our workforce and our capital formation structures are premised on the idea that smart people who invent things can own them, can license them and can recoup their investments in the products of this innovation.
The Romney administration would have you believe that they are pro-business and stand behind the Commonwealth's economic model, but behind the scenes people like the Secretary are instead working hard on policies to undermine the commercial success of our Massachusetts business leaders.
My own public policy concern about the Romney administration's misguided march is that it will eventually diminish innovation in the Commonwealth and even the US as a whole. There can be no doubt that Massachusetts, along with a handful of other states like California and North Carolina, is at the forefront of our high technology economy. The policies advocated by the Romney administration encourage the “commodization” of the technology in question and open the door for cloning of our innovation by companies using cheap labor in places like India or China. Let's make no mistake: this is not some academic debate; this is about the economic model that is at the center of our State's economy and the engine for high-tech sector job growth.
A Concerned Democratic State Committee Member
Democratic Party Documentation requested under the Fredom of Information Act (FOIA)
|
