By Bruce Mohl

The Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed an overhaul of the state’s economic development agencies, but rejected by a 21-13 vote a measure that would have required greater public disclosure of companies receiving state subsidies and how many jobs they are creating with them.

The transparency issue has been a focus for CommonWealth magazine, through stories and commentary on the film tax credit, the historic rehabilitation tax credit , and other subsidies. MassINC’s research director Ben Forman wrote last week that the vote on the transparency amendment would be a good measure of whether the bill is a sincere effort to protect taxpayer investment.

Sen. James Eldridge of Acton said his amendment was needed to find out whether the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies the state gives to companies each year are bringing the expected job returns. “The amount we spend on economic development agencies is dwarfed by the amount we spend on tax breaks and we still don’t know how many jobs are created and whether companies are honoring their commitments,” Eldridge said, according to the State House New Service.

Sen. Karen Spilka of Ashland led the charge against the amendment. She said the overhaul of the state’s economic development apparatus will make sure that taxpayers get a good return for the subsidies they provide. She also repeated her long-standing assertion that companies would shun Massachusetts if their names and subsidies were publicly identified.

“This amendment creates an extremely unfriendly and uncertain environment for businesses,” she said, according to State House News Service.

Sen. Mark Montigny of New Bedford said he was amazed that companies who receive state subsidies would turn around and say information about what they do with the subsidies is proprietary.  “We must say to industry that if we can find a nickel for you, you are going to tell us how you spent it and how many jobs you created,” he said, according to the State House News Service.

Gov. Deval Patrick inserted a tax credit transparency provision in his budget proposal for next year. A similar measure passed the Legislature last year but only after it was amended by Spilka to bar state agencies from releasing the names of tax credit recipients. Patrick objected to the Spilka amendment and the initiative stalled.