ICYMI: Boston Policy Institute is continuing the proud tradition of election guessing games past (RIP #mapoli twitter, David Bernstein’s Phoenix column, & Blue Mass Group) & is thrilled to launch a fresh round for important contested Democratic primaries for Congress, District Attorney, State Senate, and State House. Join the fun, show off your political prowess, and let’s make some bold calls!
This contest will remain open until Monday, August 31, at 11:59 PM, so get your answers in!
The last full week of August was dominated by closing week coverage of Massachusetts’ partisan primaries on September 1st, but there was one event this week that is going to drive major discussions about Boston Public Schools, and possibly city spending outside BPS, for months to come.
That event was the Wednesday release of a damning report about contracting at Boston Public Schools from the state’s Inspector General. The report got quite a bit of news coverage, and it promises to drive more stories and a lot of public policies in the weeks and months ahead - read the Boston Herald, SHNS, Boston Globe, Boston.com, WBUR, and watch NBC10:
BPI has 5 takeaways from the report, each of which are expanded on below:
$857k is the tip of the iceberg.
The report raises questions about senior officials honesty.
Senior officials were unaware of widespread misconduct.
The report recommends removing senior BPS leaders.
This report will remain front & center with 60 day, 6 months, and FY28 actions.
Before getting to that, there were a few other important stories this week worth following:
Wednesday was the deadline that Pioneer New England Legal Foundation gave to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue to respond to their latest call for a state investigation of the Boston Assessing Department. That call was in a letter sent on August 18, after the City of Boston provided data as part of an on-going lawsuit that showed at least 150 properties were affected by what PNELF calls “retaliatory assessment increases” - read more about those properties & find the letter here.
On Thursday MassHousing, the state’s quasi-public housing finance agency, released a report produced by white shoe law firm Mintz titled “Gateway Housing Rehabilitation Program Investigative Report” - find it & MassHousing leadership’s letter about the report on the agency’s Accountability and Transparency page - which found a conflict existed between the MassHousing official Tony Richards II and the grant recipients and that Richards lied to MassHousing, confirming reporting from the Boston Globe’s Spotlight Team published back on June 25, 2026. The Banker & Tradesman had the best analysis of this report, highlighting that the investigation found Richards did not use his influence either in the grant recipients selling him a West Roxbury property, or their winning grants he was managing. With the Mintz investigation now over, attention turns to the on-going investigation being conducted by the Attorney General’s office. The last update on that was in July, when the Boston Globe reported the AG’s office confirmed it had received a referral from MassHousing about the scandal, but didn’t provide further details.
The fallout from the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision last week ending the legal challenge to the plan to rebuild White Stadium through a public-private partnership between NWSL team Boston Legacy FC and Boston Public School continued this week, with editorials from both the Boston Globe and Dorchester Reporter Publisher Bill Forry calling for opponents and proponents to work together on moving the project forward, and news from the team that they would not play at White Stadium in the 2027 season.
Newspapers are weighing in on races in Boston, with the Boston Globe endorsing challenger Patrick Routh for Congress over incumbent Stephen Lynch, incumbent Will Brownsberger for State Senate over challenger Daniel Lander, and incumbent Kevin Hayden for Suffolk County DA over challengers Rachael Rollins & Linda Champion, and the Bay State Banner endorsed incumbent Nick Collins for State Senate over challengers LaToya Gayle and Juwan Skeens.
BPI’S 5 TAKEAWAYS FROM OIG REPORT ON BPS MISMANAGEMENT
1. $857k IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG
Headlines have used the $857k number, but the report is clear that this review was not comprehensive. The OIG report finds different staff members in different departments all had “used improper workarounds to avoid a difficult, disorganized, and cumbersome contracting structure.” The OIG’s report is clear that they believe their investigation uncovered enough evidence to conclude the practice is widespread - p. 70:
The findings in this report likely do not represent the total amount of improper conduct and waste of public funds orchestrated by BPS employees using these schemes. The OIG did not perform an exhaustive review across BPS, but its limited look at the handful of BPS contracts identified through complaints suggests this conduct may be more widespread. The OIG likely only scratched the surface of the tens of millions of dollars that the BPS departments examined in these investigations spend on supplies and services contracts every year.
2. THE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT SENIOR OFFICIALS HONESTY
The OIG report raises serious questions about the honesty of senior BPS officials. Some of the activities in BPS that the OIG investigated were first flagged in 2023 by the Boston Finance Commission, an independent agency inside City Hall with a mission to monitor city spending. BPS claims to have investigated those reports at the time, but failed to provide any evidence the investigation actually took place. Here is what the OIG wrote - p. 67:
In an interview with the OIG, BPS officials, including the BPS Chief of Finance, stated that they conducted an internal investigation after receiving the 2023 report and found that the identified “passthrough” invoice was a standalone occurrence. The OIG repeatedly asked BPS to provide all documents related to this internal investigation on several occasions. Despite assurances that the documents were forthcoming, as of the date of this report BPS has yet to produce any such documents to the OIG.
3. SENIOR OFFICIALS WERE UNAWARE OF WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT
While the OIG is explicit that they do not believe higher-ups in BPS were directly involved in any of these “workarounds”, the report is explicit that they were unaware of the extent of the issue - p. 70:
In interviews with the OIG, BPS officials, including the BPS Chief of Finance, stated that they believed this invoice was a standalone incident. However, as this OIG report makes clear, the practice was widespread.
4. THE OIG APPEARS TO RECOMMEND REMOVING SENIOR BPS LEADERS
The OIG recommends sweeping changes to BPS leadership, including appearing to call for the removal of a number of senior staff. The call in the executive summary for a new leader of the Division of Operations (p. 11), the division in which the issues in this report took place, is expanded in the detailed recommendations at the end of the report. This is #7 under “Immediate Recommendations – Next 60 Days” - p. 72:
The Superintendent should name an interim leader for the BPS Division of Operations and any teams or departments within that division named in this report.
5. THIS REPORT WILL REMAIN FRONT & CENTER WITH 60 DAY, 6 MONTH, AND FY28 ACTIONS
The OIG’s report is not a short list of recommendations: it has a list of actions to be taken in the next 60 Days, in the next 6 months, and to be included in the FY28 budget. That timeline means that this report’s recommendations will be front and center during the remainder of 2026, since the 60 day deadline is late October, and early 2027, since the 6 month mark is later February 2027.
The OIG includes keeping them up to date on progress to goals for the 60 Day and 6 month recommendations. There is not an explicit mention of them in the FY28 recommendations, but that is also the most public part of this process.
These recommendations are likely to dominate discussion of BPS’ FY28 budget, which by law must be presented to the School Committee by the first Wednesday in February and approved by the last Wednesday in March. The Council also must approve BPS’ FY28 budget, so look for a lot of questions from them as well. The Mayor is required to present the entire city budget by the 2nd Wednesday in April, and the Council has to vote up or down on the budget by the 2nd Wednesday in June.
Boston Policy Institute, Inc is working to improve the public conversation - help us by following BPI on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Has any Councilor commented on the report?