Candidate Q&A: State Rep. Candidate Monica Medeiros

This is the fourth article 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: Monica Medeiros
Party Affiliation: Republican
Candidate For: State representative representing Melrose and Wakefield Precincts 3-6
Challengers: David Lucas (R), Eric Estevez  (R), Paul Brodeur (D)
Age: 35
Where you live and how long you've lived there: Melrose, entire life
Family: "My wonderful parents"
Current occupation and former occupations: Melrose Ward 2 Alderman, local mortgage company in Wakefield on the operations side. Previously worked  for other mortgage companies in sales as a mortgage broker and loan officer.

Melrose Patch: You've previously been elected to the Melrose School Committee, Melrose Board of Aldermen and the Massachusetts Republican Committee. What made you want to run for state representative now?

Medeiros: It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I've been quite involved for a number of years and I've tried to do what I can to make a difference. I think we've heard for years basically one voice coming out of the State House. It's been so lopsided up there. The representation is so lopsided. Right now there's 15 Republicans out of 160 state reps. That's not even 10 percent. I've been trying to have a little more balance, so I've worked on a lot of campaigns, I've volunteered for a lot of people, I've worked behind the scenes on a lot of campaigns. And it's frustrating, because you see the same thing happen year after year. Last year, in particular, when we started to go through the budget process in the city and we were having cuts in the middle of the year to our local aid … sorry, I should probably back up a little bit.

At some point in time somebody gave a speech and said 'We need young people to get involved,' so I decided what the heck, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for School Committee. It's been good, it's been very rewarding to actually be in government and able to make a difference and do something positive, instead of just sitting on the sidelines being frustrated. Back to sitting on the Board of Aldermen, we're going through our budget, we're having cuts to our local aid in the middle of the year because the budget was based on unrealistic revenue projections. Everybody knew that we were in one of the worst economies we've been in decades. Some people say since the Depression, I don't know if that's 100 percent true, but it wasn't pretty. We didn't know when we were going to come out of it, yet they did a budget based on these revenue projections that were totally off base and in the middle year, in order to fix it, they had to make cuts. They didn't make cuts or changes as to how they operate state government. Instead, they cut our local aid. Luckily, Melrose is in a financially solvent position enough that we were able to weather it through and get by and a lot of other communities weren't. You don't know what was going to happen next time. That's where some of my frustration began and it seemed the answer at the State House was, 'let's cut local aid, let's not look at ourselves, and let's raise taxes.' They created all these news taxes, they upped the sales taxes 25 percent, they created the new local option taxes and a new sales tax on alcohol, anywhere they could find. I think they passed the buck on to the cities and towns that had to deal with the cuts with local aid and on to the taxpayers, instead of actually trying to reform anything. That's where my interest in doing this really began.

Since then, we've seen more of the same. This year is an election year, so they're not into raising our taxes as much this year, but they still cut our local aid and these are all the same state reps that go and talk about how they're going to protect local aid before anything else. If you look at almost any one of their campaign websites from this year, two years ago, they're all the champions of bringing back local aid to their districts, but it's the first thing that they've cut. It doesn't make sense. I see some trouble ahead, even more so now that we see the budget balanced on stimulus money and rainy day funds that aren't going to be there next year. I think there's an opportunity to and I think we're going to have to, not start from scratch, but kind of start from scratch and really take a fresh look at how we look at government: what can government do, what can't it do, what should it do, what shouldn't it do.

Melrose Patch: You've made statements supporting rolling back the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent. This November voters will likely have the chance, in the form of a ballot question, to vote on just that — to rollback the sales tax from 6.25 percent to actually 3 percent. Do you support rolling back the sales tax to 3 percent and, regarding your stated support of repealing the sales tax increase back to 5 percent, how would you adjust or make up for the $739 million the Department of Revenue has estimated that increase has brought in to the state over the last 10 months?

Medeiros: What they don't estimate is how much revenue we've lost because we've lost business to New Hampshire. There's no doubt in my mind that our businesses, especially in the northern half of Massachusetts, suffer because people get in their cars and drive to New Hampshire. 6.25 percent versus zero percent is a big deal, especially on any kind of big purchase items such as a computer, an iPhone, a printer, tires. Those things, it's a significant amount of money. I'm sure we lose money and nobody's done the projection of what we've lost. I have thought a lot about it and I absolutely support going back to 5 percent. I think it was a mistake to go to 6.25 percent. The more I've been thinking about knowing how much business I think we do lose to New Hampshire, I'm willing to give 3 percent a shot. I think it will actually be something that can bring business back to Massachusetts. It's a tough call when you're deciding should I get in the car to save 3 percent and spend who knows how much in gas to drive up to Salem, NH, versus zero and 6.25 percent.

Melrose Patch: In a press release, you said the Legislature used "the casino debate to distract from the fiscal 2011 budget problems, especially the need for cost-cutting reform at the state level to fix an unsustainable budget that relies heavily on funds that will not be available in the future." Another press release, when you announced your candidacy, you "cited wasteful spending on Beacon Hill as one of the major reasons communities are unable to pay for necessary services such as police, fire, roads, and schools." Can you pinpoint areas in the state budget you consider wasteful spending and what cost-cutting reforms or specific budget cuts are you specifically proposing?

Medeiros: One of the major problems up there is that so much is done in secret. Nobody knows what's in this budget. Unless you're really up there and privy to all of the discussions, it's hard to say 'I'm going to cut this and I'm going to cut that.' I think you need to be up there and working in it. One of the problems is all these budget hearings are behind closed doors. The average person can't get to that and even an informed person can't get the information they want out of there. Despite that, I think one of the things that's particularly egregious to me, you see in UMass, the top administrators have these big fancy cars. It's just absolutely positively insulting to the people who are trying to struggle to pay to go to college and to the taxpayers who are helping to subsidize some of this education system. Things like that I think are grossly wasteful. I think there are opportunities to streamline what we've got. In particular, I think in terms of healthcare, I think there's a lot of opportunity there. I went and spoke about this Republican amendment last year, when we had the municipal cabinet meeting when Lt. Gov. Murray came (to Melrose), and this amendment to change the MassHealth system to a managed care system was estimated to save  $160 million. That's a huge reform that basically just gets shot down - it was brought up again this year — year after year, I believe on a partisan basis only. I think there's a lot of opportunity there.

You see in particular in Health and Human Services, I think there's a disservice to the people who need those services. I think there's a lot of duplication and overhead and it's very confusing. I think that's an area where we could really find a way to better offer those services and get rid of some of the administrative overhead. The people on the frontlines are paid practically nothing, not what they deserve to be paid. Then you've got to look at places, and I know we don't have control over the state auditor's office, but Auditor DeNucci just gave all his staff a 5 percent raise. That's outrageous. In a time when everybody else is giving more, I think there's a lot out there that could be streamlined.

Melrose Patch: Let's go to your work on the Board of Aldermen. In spring of 2009, Mayor Rob Dolan and his staff asked that surplus water rate to the tune of $252,000 be put into a new reserve account that would be used to pay for water projects around the city. The Appropriations Committee, comprised of the full board, initially voted against that, choosing instead to return that surplus to the ratepayers — in other words, keeping the money in the water account to mitigate any rate increase the next year. At the next full board meeting, the aldermen instead voted to create the new reserve account, with the general consensus being that unless the aldermen voted against funding any new water projects, ratepayers wouldn't see any relief because they were going to do those projects anyway. You voted against creating the reserve account both times. Can you talk about your decision and as a hypothetical situation, if the reserve account wasn't created, would you have voted against any new water projects?

Medeiros: You have to look at the projects one by one. We have to invest in our infrastructure, but at the same time, it's just like anything else at home. You can't necessarily start new projects if you can't afford them, or you shouldn't, anyway. I did vote both times for both the water and sewer to send the money back, to have it apply to the rate and hopefully save the ratepayers some money. In the end, that failed on the water rate, but it passed on the sewer rate (a surplus of $170,000). I think it actually goes to a larger problem in terms of the state and the MWRA … I wouldn't necessarily not vote against any new water projects, but I wouldn't necessarily vote for them and we have to look at each one individually. Can we afford it? Some of the issues are do we go out and bond for new projects? Most water projects are something we go out and bond for and there's a cost to that, too. There's a cost to the ratepayers because we're adding the cost of repaying those bonds to the rate, but at the same time it's important to maintain our infrastructure. I'm comfortable with my vote, I wouldn't change that at all. I think that's something I should be proud of, voting to actually send some money back to the taxpayers. Again, it's not necessarily sending it back, but it's applying it to the rate and I wouldn't change that.

Melrose Patch: Last month, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care struck a deal with state regulators to voluntarily limit its insurance rate increases for individuals and small businesses. This goes back to 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. Is this kind of intervention a way to prevent health insurance costs from climbing higher and higher, or is this only a temporary stopgap? What can legislators do to control health care costs?

Medeiros: I think this is only a temporary fix. We have to tackle the whole problem of why health care is so expensive. I've yet to have somebody come up with a good answer as to why health care is so expensive. I think part of the problem is that the whole industry is kind of shrouded in secrecy. We have HIPAA and protections in place to protect the individual and their privacy about what may or may not be wrong with them. But because of this, it's created I think a complete level of secrecy and I do think that people should be able to know ahead of time what procedures are going to cost. For example, when you see a CAT scan, which is virtually a picture or two, cost $4,000, it makes me wonder why is that so expensive. I think people need to know, especially when they're paying more and more of their own co-pays, what the costs are upfront. I think you'll get people to start asking questions. I think as much as possible we should try to have more openness in general so people can compare shop. We have this health bill that passed mandating health care (insurance).

I'm probably the only one in the race that actually had to go through the Commonwealth system, because my old employer had too few employees that they didn't have to offer health insurance, but I was mandated to go get it on my own. So I went through the state's website, the Commonwealth Connector .… I've made too much money to qualify for free or reduced care, but still I have to pay for my own health care. For me as an individual, it cost $317 a month, which is almost $4,000 a year, and I didn't go to the doctor once. I don't feel that was a good use of my personal funds. I'd like to see us go to a modified version of this system where perhaps we require only catastrophic coverage and use things like health savings accounts — we don't really use health savings accounts in Massachusetts — so that people can decide how they want to spend their own money. They would still potentially have to invest in their health savings accounts, but it would be their money to help pay for services in the long run. I think a combination of making it more open, giving people more freedom for the kind of coverage that they need, would go a long way to improving the system. And a little tort reform.

Melrose Patch: This year, the House indefinitely delayed on 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 approved by the House prohibits the proposal from taking effect until Health and Human Services studies its impact on the state's economy and a new bill to require the verification is filed and approved. What would have you voted on this proposal and your thoughts on how the state can tackle the thorny issue of illegal immigration?

Medeiros: I would absolutely support this amendment. I think it's outrageous to think that we can't require proof of citizenship or proof that people are here legally in order to receive benefits. Some things are absolutely unfair to people who try to do the right thing and go to work every day and pay their bills. Knowing that somebody else who's not here legally can get free services while you have to struggle to pay your bills for your mandated health insurance and everything else is just a slap in the fact to the taxpayer and to the people who are trying to do the right thing. I think that's a no-brainer, that before you get benefits you should prove you're here legally.

Melrose Patch: The state passed an education bill earlier this year that targets underperforming schools, expands the authority of school superintendents in struggling districts to fire teachers, and increase both funding — and the potential for more — charter schools. What are your thoughts on this bill? Did it go far enough, not far enough, too far?

Medeiros: I think it's OK. I think it was a good compromise bill. There are some more freedoms given to our education system that are important. I know charter schools always come up and what do you think about them. In the big city districts, they're much more of an issue, I guess, much more of a benefit and of a threat because there's such a discrepancy between the traditionally public school and the charter schools in the big cities. I think here in Melrose, I think the Melrose Public Schools are very good schools and they're very competitive with Mystic Valley, which is proven to be an excellent and outstanding school. I think this all goes back to why charter schools were created in the first place. It was supposed to create some competition so that it would hopefully bring up the quality of the traditional public schools. I don't think we've done enough in figuring out why the charter schools have excelled and how we can apply that to the traditional public school system. Anything that gives more freedom into how we educate our children is a good thing.

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

Medeiros: The problem is that this money was so tempting, that we might get from the Race to the Top fund, that I think they just made a decision and gave up a lot. Massachusetts has been a pioneer in education, historically, and we still are. We're at the top. It's definitely risky to give up our control. I don't like that we're giving up our control, I don't believe that the federal government should be in control of education. I think we do need some statewide standards, but I want to see places like Melrose compete with places like Wellesley, not places like Boston competing with Tuscaloosa. It's a different ballgame. If we actually got the budget under control and didn't keep turning to local aid for the answer, then I think this money wouldn't have been so tempting to the Department of Education.

That being said, I don't think this is going to destroy education in Massachusetts. There's a lot of people talking like the sky is falling. We still have excellent teachers, we still have a community that is committed to the best education for their kids, to make them succeed. That's not going to change just because we adopt one curriculum or another. There are some, from what I've read, there could be some benefits to us in terms of math and science. It supposedly does encourage critical thinking. These are good skills. It's not necessarily the end of the world, but I don't think it was the right choice.

Melrose Patch: The stock answer for any legislator, when asked about their main priority or concern on Beacon Hill, is the budget and specifically local aid. Besides the budget and local aid, what is your main priority if you are elected to the House?

Medeiros: I think we have to work on really changing the culture up there. It's just been a culture of corruption. I think we need to bring more accountability there and I think there's some real ways to do that. We need to open things up. We've seen just scandal after scandal, the last three speakers indicted. I think the voters don't feel like anybody's listening to them, they don't know what's going on because everything is done behind closed doors. It's simple things like the Open Meeting Law that applies the Board of Aldermen, School Committee and local committee in the city should apply at the State House as well. They talk about ethics reform — that's one of the most simple things. Let's not have budget meetings behind closed doors. Let's not have meetings behind closed doors. Open it up and there won't be as much room for this backroom dealing.

It was horrifying two weeks ago to hear the reports of all these closed door meetings on Beacon Hill. That was the lead on every single news story — "Closed door meetings on Beacon Hill." What was going on behind those doors? What was being promised? I think putting votes up on the website is key. The state website, you saw the committee votes, and the committees actually voted to not put out their votes to be posted on the website for people to see. You want anything these days, that's probably we're you're going (to the Internet). I just feel like it's people trying to hide. They speak one way when they're at a local forum in their city or town, but when they are up there and taking votes that don't reflect the values of the communities they're in, they're hiding. I'd like to be an open legislator. I think we need more of that. I think that would help all the way around.