

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Alexis Baden-Mayer, 202-744-0853, alexis@organicconsumers.org
Jan Buhrman, 508-360-4491, jan@kitchenporch.com
John Mayer, 925-681-9780, johnm@organicconsumers.org
The
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) blocked
scores of citizens from participating in a public hearing held on
Monday, May 10, 2010, to examine controversial proposed regulations
restricting public access to raw milk. The Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) has sent a formal letter of complaint (see below) to
Attorney General Martha Coakley seeking a full investigation of what is
a serious violation of the state's open meetings law. OCA is a
national organization with thousands of members in Massachusetts. It
promotes healthy organic foods such as raw milk.
Last Monday,
May 10, hundreds of citizens, and at least one dairy cow, descended on
the State Capitol to protest and testify against proposed MDAR
regulations that would end, for all intents and purposes, the ability
of most Massachusetts citizens to obtain fresh raw milk directly from
the farm. The proposed regulations would put out of business many
family farms during these hard economic times.
Despite the
peaceful nature of the public hearing, scores were kept from attending
the proceedings and were not provided with any alternative means to
hear, see or participate in them.
"These dictatorial proposed
rule changes have sparked outrage among Massachusetts milk drinkers and
dairy farmers," said Jan Buhrman, a chef and farmer advocate who
attended the hearing. "The Department of Agriculture knew this was a
contentious issue, and yet the hearing was held in a room much too
small for the number of attendees. We call upon Attorney General
Coakley to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation and force MDAR
and Commissioner Soares to comply with Massachusetts law regarding
public meetings."
Commissioner Soares has violated the
Massachussetts open meetings law. The proper and immediate sanction is
to do it right - open this process anew and conduct another public
hearing with no lock-outs and full and fair public participation.
Attorney General Martha Coakley can be reached at (617) 727 2200, ago@state.ma.us
Robert Nasdor, Director, Division of Open Government, can be reached at (617) 727 2200, Robert.Nasdor@state.ma.us
MDAR Commissioner Scott Soares can be reached at (617) 626 1701, Scott.Soares@state.ma.us
THE COMPLAINT:
May 13, 2010
Attorney General
Martha Coakley
Office of the
Attorney General
One Ashburton Place,
20th Floor Boston,
Massachusetts 02108
Via Email, Fax and Overnight Certified Mail
Attn: Robert Nasdor,
Division of Open Government
Re: Open Meeting Law
Violation
Dear Attorney General Coakley:
I am writing to ask you to investigate an open meeting law violation that
occurred on Monday, May 10, 2010 during a hearing conducted by the
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources ("DAR").
The meeting occurred pursuant to a notice advertising changes to the DAR's
regulations regarding raw milk. It
took place in meeting rooms D and E on the second floor of 100 Cambridge Street
in Boston. A number of people (we
estimate between 50 and 75) were prevented from entering the hearing room by
DAR staff who stated that allowing additional people to attend the hearings
would exceed the rooms' capacity. These people were directed to another room that lacked any visual or
sound connection to the hearing room. Only as individuals left the hearing room were additional people
allowed, on a one-by-one basis, to enter the hearing room. As a result, a large number of
interested persons were prevented from attending the meeting at all.
I strongly believe that preventing people from entering the meeting
violates the open meeting law, which provides:
All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any
person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by
this section. G.L. c. 30A, SS 11A1/2.
In this
case many "person[s]" were not "permitted to attend" this
meeting. No exceptions in SS 11A 1/2
apply, as there was no declaration of an executive session and no basis for
excluding anyone. The same is true
under the version of the Open Meeting Law that will become effective on June 1,
2010. G.L. c. 30A, SS 20(a).
There is no exception for a room that is too small, as DAR claimed. I
recognize that there are codes limiting the number of people in hearing
rooms. That places the burden on
the agency to secure a large enough room or at least to provide for video and
audio feeds into and from any room holding people who are turned away from the
live hearing. Responsibility for
the size of the room falls upon the agency having control over the
arrangements, not upon members of the public who are trying to exercise their
rights to address and petition their government. Failing to provide adequate space cannot be allowed as an
excuse for non-compliance with the open meeting law.
Moreover, the DAR itself anticipated a large amount of interest in its
proposed regulations. In an
attempt to reduce attendance, it posted an announcement on its website after
hours on Friday, May 7, attempting to withdraw a controversial provision of the
proposed regulations and contacted at least one large organization, which
withdrew its request for its members to attend. Enforcing the government's open meeting
responsibilities to allow "any person . . . to attend any meeting" is
particularly important when the agency tries to match room size and audience by
taking active steps to reduce attendance instead of providing a large enough
room, with overflow capability by video and audio feed. The DAR is not, after all, without
resources to comply with the minimal open meeting burdens that the legislature
has imposed upon it.
I respectfully request an investigation.
Signed,
Alexis Baden-Mayer,
Esq.
Political Director
Organic Consumers
Association
cc: Deval Patrick, Governor
Ian A. Bowles,
Secretary
Scott J.
Soares, Commissioner
###
Learn more at www.organicconsumers.org/raw-milk
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
The vote came after an emotional debate in which some Republican lawmakers detailed threats and harassment they'd received for opposing the president's redistricting scheme.
President Donald Trump's push to get Indiana Republicans to redraw their congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections went down in overwhelming defeat in the Indiana state Senate on Thursday.
As reported by Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman, the proposal to support a mid-decade gerrymander in Indiana was rejected by a vote of 19 in favor to 31 opposed, with 21 Republican state senators crossing the aisle to vote with all 10 Democrats to torpedo the measure, which would have changed the projected balance of Indiana's current congressional makeup from seven Republicans and two Democrats to a 9-0 map in favor of the GOP.
The Senate vote came after the state House's approval of the bill and an emotional debate in which some Indiana Republicans opposed to the president's plan detailed violent threats they'd received from his supporters.
According to a report published in the Atlantic on Thursday, Republican Indiana state Sen. Greg Walker (41) this week detailed having heavily armed police come to his home as the result of a false emergency call, a practice commonly known as swatting.
Walker said that he refused to be intimated by such tactics, and added that "I fear for all states if we allow threats and intimidation to become the norm."
Indiana's rejection of the effort is a major blow to Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.
Christina Harvey, executive director for Stand Up America, said that the Indiana state Senate's rejection of the Trump plan was an "important victory for democracy."
"For weeks, Indiana residents have been pleading with their state leaders to stop mid-decade redistricting and the Senate listened," Harvey said. “Despite threats to themselves and their families, a majority of Indiana senators were steadfast in rejecting this gerrymandered map."
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, praised the Republicans who rejected the president's scheme despite enduring threats and harassment.
"Threats of violence are never acceptable, and no lawmakers should face violent threats for simply standing up for their constituents," Bisognano said. "Republicans in other states who are facing a similar choice—whether to listen to their constituents or follow orders from Washington—should follow Indiana’s lead in rejecting this charade and finally put an end to the national gerrymandering crisis."
The lawmakers accused the Social Security Administration of "a slash-first, think-later approach," for which "beneficiaries will pay the price."
Leading Senate Democrats and Independent US Sen. Bernie Sanders this week pressed the Trump administration for answers following reports that the Social Security Administration is planning to dramatically reduce visits to its field offices.
"We write with concerns regarding recent reports that the Social Security Administration is reorganizing its field office operations, and has established a goal of cutting the number of field office visits in half—amounting to 15 million fewer visits annually," Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a letter to SSA Administrator Frank Bisignano.
"Given that beneficiaries are already waiting months for field office appointments, and the agency has not shared with Congress or the public on how it plans to achieve this goal, we are concerned that these efforts are in fact part of a plan to 'quietly kill field offices,' implementing a backdoor cut in benefits by making it harder for Americans to access the Social Security customer services they need," the senators said.
"The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked Social Security."
Earlier this month, Nextgov/FCW revealed that the Social Security Administration said in internal documents that it wants “no more than 15 million total” in-person visits to its field offices in fiscal year 2026—or about half the current number of such visits. An anonymous SSA staffer told the outlet that senior agency officials are aiming for “fewer people in the front door" and for "all work that doesn’t require direct customer interactions to be centralized.”
As Warren's office noted Thursday:
The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked Social Security. Under Commissioner Bisignano, the administration has implemented policy changes that make it harder for Americans to get their benefits, including by implementing burdensome in-person and bug-prone identification processes that force millions more beneficiaries to visit field offices each year—at the same time they are slashing SSA’s workforce by around 7,000 and closing regional offices.
Instead of staffing up to meet these needs, SSA’s field office capacity has significantly declined. Beneficiaries are being forced to wait hours to get help—only to be told they will need to call to schedule an appointment.
"We are concerned that your plan is to force beneficiaries onto SSA’s bug-prone website or push them into customer service phone tree 'doom-loops'—which will almost certainly result in delayed or missed benefits for some individuals," the letter adds. "Once again, you seem to have adopted a slash-first, think-later approach to 'modernizing' SSA, and beneficiaries will pay the price."
The senators are asking Bisignano if the reports of proposed SSA office visit reductions are accurate, and if so, how and when the plan will be implemented, how the agency will "provide services to beneficiaries that would otherwise go to field offices," and how the reductions will affect already lengthy wait times and service online users and callers to the agency's 1-800 number.
The lawmakers' letter comes as Republican senators on Thursday voted down a proposed three-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, a move that is expected to result, on average, in a doubling of health insurance premiums for around 22 million people. Critics said the vote underscores the need for single-payer healthcare legislation like the Medicare for All Act reintroduced by Sanders and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) earlier this year.
The trade deficit has grown and the US has lost manufacturing jobs during the first nine months of Trump's second term.
A new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute claims that the signature trade deal from President Donald Trump's first term has actually "created more problems than it fixed."
The report, published Thursday, notes that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed into law by Trump in 2020, has completely failed to fulfill Trump's stated goal of lowering the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, which has grown from a combined $125 billion in 2020 to $263 billion in 2025.
This increased trade deficit was particularly notable when it comes to the auto industry, says the report, written by EPI senior economist Adam S. Hersh.
"In the critical automotive industry that Trump said he wanted to reshore, imports of motor vehicles and parts from Mexico nearly doubled following USMCA, rising to $274 billion in 2024, up from $196 billion in 2019," the report explains. "Light-duty vehicles imports from Mexico rose 36% while imports of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles increased a whopping 256%."
The report also finds that the trade deal "left a gaping loophole for Chinese manufacturers to exploit duty-free access to North American markets without reciprocal market access for US manufacturers," the result of which was "Chinese firms expanded their direct investment footprint in Mexico by as much as 288% through 2023."
The bottom line, says the report, is "Trump’s USMCA created more problems than it fixed," and that "today the pressure on manufacturing jobs and deterioration in the trade balance with Mexico are worse than before USMCA."
However, the report also says that the US, Canada, and Mexico have an opportunity to significantly improve on USMCA given that the deal is up for review next year.
Among other things, the report recommends closing the loopholes that have allowed Chinese manufacturers to rapidly expand their footprint in Mexico; expanding the the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism that "has helped improve wages and working conditions in a number of specific workplaces"; and slashing intellectual property rights provisions that "currently allow companies to preempt local laws addressing negative externalities from digital service provision."
The EPI report came on the same day that American Economic Liberties Project's Rethink Trade program released an analysis showing that Trump so far has failed to live up to his pledge to reduce the US trade deficit and revive domestic manufacturing.
In all, Rethink Trade found that the US trade deficit increased more during the first nine months of 2025 than it did during the first nine months of 2024. Additionally, the group found that the US has actually lost 49,000 manufacturing jobs since the start of Trump's second term.
Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program, said that "the nine-month data show outcomes that are the opposite of President Trump’s promises to cut the trade deficit and create more American manufacturing jobs."
She noted that Trump's trade deals so far "seem to prioritize the demands of Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other usual beneficiaries of decades of failed US trade policy instead of fixing the root causes of our huge trade deficit to help American manufacturing workers and firms as he promised."