the pros and cons of your ethics reforms and my suggestions?
It could help clear things up. I’ll be fair. Argue the facts. No name calling.
C’mon. Let’s give it a go. Right here on BMG. You can cross post on RMG if you like.
Please share widely!
judy-meredith says
I’ll donate $10.00 to your favorite charity. (As long as it’s not right to life, or anti immigrant, or NRA, or………hummmmmm maybe the list is too long.
Tell you what, I’ll donate to your re-election campaign because I think you are a smart , honest, principled stand-up guy not afraid of Ernie B3 who ever he is.
dan-winslow says
Of course, I don’t need promises of campaign funding to seize the opportunity to engage with EB3, who truly is the person who creates the biggest buzz in the State House. Of course, after hearing my point of view with Ernie, if the spirit moves one to donate to a worthy Republican cause, I have a secure online donation site at http://www.icontribute.us/danwinslow...
eaboclipper says
I’d advise Dan Winslow to only do this face to face on video. Then he can collect the bounty from Ernie Boch Jr…. đŸ˜‰
dan-winslow says
A couple of preliminary observations:
–Lincoln-Douglas format. I’ll make an affirmative case, you make an affirmative case, we exchange and answer questions, followed by pithy rebuttal by each of the other.
–It’s not a Republican proposal. It’s now officially a bipartisan proposal with the growing support of Democratic members. Okay, so we have two so far. But more than a dozen have said they’re likely to join the effort. And I suspect more will join. As it should be.
–The proposal is not perfect. It never was meant to be perfect. It was meant to start a considered debate on the topic, to invite amendment, to refine and improve to reach a better proposal. We’re not used to that process in the House, where most proposals hit the floor as done deals. This will be good for the House to try democracy on for size. To address concerns that D amendments will be characterized as “watering down” the proposal, I will gladly co-sponsor all D amendments and reserve my right to speak to merits on the floor.
–Last, with all due regard to my nemesis EB3, I really do hope that BMG (and RMG) is not the only forum where this proposal is debated this year. This is good for the House as an institution and protects Members and staff with brightline rules of conduct and flexibility to seek Ethics Committee approval as needed. We increase public trust and confidence in state government by keeping Members and staff out of trouble in the first place. There is precedent for mid-session rules changes (these are, after all, the same people who changed the election rules–twice–for US Senate in mid-campaign) so no reason we can’t react as an institution to address the repeated issues of corruption in the General Court. We need to.
dan-winslow says
The House Ethics proposal prohibits Members and staff from contacting any public agency regarding a pending or impending procurement until after the contract has been awarded. The Herald calls this the “Cognos” rule. It’s a brightline rule that will keep Members and staff out of trouble. Legislators have zero constitutional role in procurement decisions so there’s no legitimate reason for legislators to attempt to influence contract awards. By creating a rule, it eliminates the pressures that Members might feel to make the call on behalf of contractors in their district because a legislator in another district is making such calls for their constituents. In the Cognos example, the Governor’s staff would have had a brightline groundrule–instead of their generalized discomfort– that legislative entreaties in the procurement were unethical. Maybe that would have gotten their more focused attention. If a legislator wants to weigh in with an agency that a particular contractor is doing a lousy job and shouldn’t be renewed (as a near daily commuter rail traveler, I feel EB3’s pain), that legislator simply can alert the Ethics Committee of the issue and the planned course of action and seek Ethics signoff for clearance. Legislators weigh in on procurement decisions now. They shouldn’t. This rule will change that practice on Beacon Hill for the House. What say you EB3?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
You have many rules listed. I have looked at them all. Let’s not pick and choose. Let’s do this in an orderly fashion. I do have an answer to this particular issue. But before we debate it and others let’s first eliminate for the purpose of debate the many rule suggestions that simply parrot other statutes and regulations. A good proportion of the proposals fall into that category. Can we first identify by section the proposals that result in new rules different from the current status quo. The way it is written one would assume many of the rules do not currently exist.
I think this will better allow the reader to understand the underlying issues.
Also, perhaps separate posts for each issue? First post identifies the new ideas in the proposals and then a post thereafter for each issue.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
One by one we should debate them. You may want to add some to yours’
dan-winslow says
You want the specific list of new stuff at the outset, or just take them one by one as they come? Procurement is the first one at bat.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
procurement is far down the list of new stuff.
The opening sentence of the draft reads Ordered,
and even number committee of equal number party members. That appears to be the first issue.
Thanks
SomervilleTom says
This shiny new BMG platform encourages members to create their own blogs. Seems like this is a good candidate, so that the EB3 and dan-winslow can keep threads for each while simultaneously keeping the whole debate conveniently separated from the “main” group.
For the editors — is there some sort of cross-posting ability, so that comments in a sub-blog appear on the main pages? Presumably Dan and EB3 would like to preserve the visibility that the main BMG site provides.
David says
I will take it up with the principals.
Peter Porcupine says
.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Ahhhh, Okay. I guess. Are sure you want to do this? I would, but my mother is picking me up right after school. Boy are you lucky Dan. I’d kill ya. Wait a second, my cell phone. Hi Ma. What? Huh? Take the bus? Bye. Damn.
Okay Dan, it’s on!
okapi says
Someone ask Mr. Winslow how he can be legal counsel for Jack E. Robinson’s group (paid, I wonder?) and at the same time be one of the Reps who will vote on the final plan.
Isn’t this an ethical issue?
dan-winslow says
We’ll see how many off-topic posts I’ll need to parry in the meantime, but here goes: I have filed all necessary ethics disclosures revealing that my (unpaid) work as civil rights trial counsel for http://www.fairdistrictsmass.org will prevent me from appearing before the redistricting committee or voting on any special legislation concerning redistricting. I sought and received Ethics Commission clearance for this pro bono work. Of course, IF (a large assumption, since the Legislature is batting 0 for 4 in the last 40 years in enacting plans that were not successfully challenged on civil rights grounds) the Legislature does not violate the racial and voting rights of Massachusetts citizens in redistricting, there will be no lawsuit and no further involvement on my part. We’ll see.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
You’re with me. Pat no attention to the nuts. Normal people do not have a problem with that.
AmberPaw says
NOTHING after June 30th!!