Yes you. The Massachusetts House Rules concentrate power in the hands of a few key players who determine which legislation makes it to the floor and which will die in committee. For over 10 years, for example, the updated bottle bill (which PIRG claims is supported by a majority of the members of the House) never has made it to the floor for debate and a vote. The amount of debate has diminished considerably compared to 20 and 30 years ago. Transparency has suffered as amendments are “consolidated” behind closed doors and a majority of the House meets in private before every important formal session to determine the outcome of legislation before debate. (And yes, Amberpaw, I support application of the OML and public records law to the legislative process).
This is where you come in. Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to join the Rule 28 Coalition. You can see who has joined to date here: http://www.rule28.com. The leadership’s talking points warn rank and file Democrats not to join because the Coalition is an “election year Republican ploy” to increase debate, transparency and accountability. If that’s the ploy, perhaps more Democrats should be part of it. The proposal has received support from the Metrowest Daily News, http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x1085184647/Editorial-Letting-the-state-reps-vote, and The Boston Globe, http://rule28.com/news/globe-for-livelier-debate-over-ideas-house-must-get-bills-on-floor/1241/, two publications not known for their complicity in Republican plots.
Your Representatives need to hear from you and not just the warning shot that was sent over their bows by the Democratic leadership. All the Rule 28 Coalition requires is a vote to discharge legislation from committee to the floor for debate. Members are not required to support any bill on the floor and are free to argue and vote for or against any legislation. But there’d be a debate, a vote and the ability for voters to see whether their Representative represents their interests. The danger (as we sadly have seen in the recent past) is that a top-down system allows one lobbyist or interest group to convince a handful of leaders to shut down the progress of any particular bill. That’s not healthy and it’s certainly not democratic.
Please post your Representative’s responses here. Or better yet, let’s have some Representatives join the discussion. At least we’re free to debate on BMG.
at this point. You have all the Republicans and two Democrats signed up.
Charley Murphy’s addition could be dismissed as sour grapes, though that’s probably not a fair dismissal. I don’t know Ms. Stanley, though her legislative record suggests she’s friendly with Bruce Tarr.
I agree the leadership is far too strong, but I have no idea whether or not this rule is the way to go. Perhaps you could offer some of the potential “negatives” of the bill?
BTW, you may want to have someone do some SEO optimization on your website. Googling “Rule 28” turns up some odd hits and no mention of your website. “Rule 28 coalition” turns up articles, but no website.
Happy Presidents’ Day, Mark!
not at all.
Massachusetts Republicans (who, by definition, are nearly unelectable outside our borders) and progressive Democrats once had an active alliance. We still can today. Imagine all the issues that would benefit from a progressive majority: updated bottle bill, campaign finance and election law reform, ethics laws updates, and more. If we add up all the House Republicans and the progressive Democrats, we’re already a majority. Our friends on the other side of the aisle just need to know that you’ve got their backs. Most of them are very frightened to stand up and be counted. You can help change that.
I do recall how your party teamed up with a minority faction of the Democrats to elect that paragon of transparency, democracy, and incorruptibility, Speaker Thomas Finneran.
Not what you meant I assume.
Can you refresh my memory about all that old progressive alliance stuff?
Is the problem that this rule is not being applied? Are members refusing to sign these discharge petitions? Is the Speaker refusing to recognize members to make a motion to discharge? If this weren’t already a rule and your goal was to make it a rule I would understand that, but I’m confused about what more needs to happen here.
Rarely applied, since it is perceived as an effort to buck leadership’s control of the flow (or ebb) of legislation. Rank and file Democrats who join in a Rule 28 motion do so at great peril. Extra pay, bigger offices, preferred parking locations are all at risk. The Rule28 Coalition thus would recast the majority as members who favor debate and transparency regardless of the particular issue at hand. It won’t happen, though, unless Democrats hear from their constituents. They’ve already heard from their leadership.
It is true that the last “alliance” between Republicans and Democrats brought us Finneran the Speaker, who started the ramping up or the reining in of democracy (what democracy on Beacon Hill, you say?)
Like the old USSR – the rules on the books looked great – but the culture remained “We say jump, you say how high” – and it is so very much that way on Beacon Hill.
I will ask certain folks what they are supporting to bring back democracy and open debate in both the State House of Representatives and the State Senate. The so-called “consolidated amendment process” took EVERYTHING out of the view of anyone but those behind locked doors. I remember the first time. Sickening.
As to the “Rule 28 coalition” – I wish you luck with it, but it doesn’t look much like a coalition and unless you are handing out courage like in the Wizard of Oz … not sure that a mere query from AmberPaw will do the trick. Probably not.
…were still “Massachusetts Republicans.”
If the GOP delegation in the State Legislature these days were still made up of the kind of moderates who once trod the earth hereabouts (where have you gone, Frank Sargent and Ed Brooke?), the Rule 28 Coalition would be an interesting idea. But alas, it’s the Tea Party era now.
Here’s what I mean. I’d have a really hard time urging my Representative to sign on to the Rule 28 Coalition if the result would be making a priority of current GOP ideas like:
abolishing the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, or
bringing further hardship and embarrassment to unemployed people in the state by requiring them to volunteer their time to charity instead of looking for jobs, or
assuming that the answer to everything – including our growing problem of income inequality — is a tax cut.
With one exception (and thank you for your vote on that one, Rep. Winslow), all the GOP House members voted against the transgender rights bill. And with only a couple of exceptions, all the House GOP members have signed on to Grover Norquist’s pledge never to vote for any kind of tax increase. And since you brought up the Bottle Bill, last time I looked, that was Grover’s idea of a tax increase.
I’ll be happy to ask my Representative to stand up to House leadership after the House GOP members have stood up to Grover Norquist and to the Tea Party.
Even after the most recent elections the GOP is still a small minority. Assuming party line votes the ideas you fear will ultimately be voted down, but if a majority coalition DOES support them they should be voted on.
with the “coalition” is that it would put legislation legitimately stuck in committee (if there is such a thing) in the legislature’s hands. My guess–because I don’t know the in’s and out’s of the legislature’s rules–is that the coalition would grant our Republican friends more power. At least the power to embarrass.
And can you really trust the Massachusetts GOP? That’s what Hester is saying. There’s no Republican skin in this game. They’ve got nothing to lose.
Mr. Winslow is the most interesting Massachusetts Republican to come along in a while. Some here have suggested he’s got his eye on the governor’s office. Coalition 28 is another moderate-seeming proposal that builds his moderate credentials. I’m not saying he doesn’t truly believe in what he’s offering here, but I’m not sure I want to help build his resume.
The first is a rules question: If such a coalition were to exist, it would be able to compel House Ways and Means or Third Reading to release bills. Would it have any authority under House rules to compel House leadership to take an item off the calendar for a full debate on the floor?
Second: I commend you efforts to find creative ways for outsiders, progressive and republican alike, to work together to provide an outside influence on the close-to-authoritarian power of legislative leadership in MA. I am also impressed by your efforts to promote public policy efforts by building grassroots support. However, if you want to sell a progressive group like BMG on the merits of your endeavor, it might be advisable to win the trust of some of your more progressive colleagues in the House. You may be right that many are under the control of leadership, but there is also a small group of progressive outsiders who have consistently and publicly challenged the Speaker to open the House and bring more bills to the floor. Why haven’t they joined the Rule 28 Coalition?
Winning the support of some of your more courageous progressive colleagues could help make your case more convincing to progressive communities like BMG.
The quote is directly from your website. And I note that two of your supporting Reps are currently having a serious amount of trouble with transparency and accountability when it comes to their campaigns and contributions.
Paul Adams twisted himself into a pretzel to hide campaign contributions. Keiko Orral first failed to report information on contributions from paypal and now records show she received thousands of dollars in support from the Marlboro Republican Committee. The source of all that money hidden from the voters. Who gave the money used for the Orral campaign? What special interests were involved?
Sorry Representative Winslow but transparency and accountability begin at home. How about making that rule #1 for the Rule 28 Coalition?
How long does a bill sit in committee before you consider it “stuck”? The committees do have legitimate work to do which takes some time. I would suggest saying that if the committee has taken no action within x number of days after referal to that committee, then this procedure is triggered.
Some bills are fairly simple and straightforward, others are really complex or more comprehensive. Wouldn’t want to delay the straightforward bill or cut short examination on the more comprehensive one.
Was a product of a grand coalition between “progressive” Dems & Republicans trying to make Speaker Tom McGee look unresponsive to liberal human service advocates. Succeeded in making McGee responsive beyond our wildest dreams.
Sorry for fat fingered typos
… don’t like the fact of your own minority status.
No thank you. If I don’t like the way the Democrats are handling things, I’ll go ahead and vote for different Democrats. But I’m surely not going to vote for Republicans. Nor will I work to give the decidedly minority party any bigger say than that which is already allocated to them through the process of electoral representation.
contributions? Or were you involved?
Sean Cairncross at the National Republican Senatorial Committee seems to have written it for Scott Brown instead.
to the end of the first sentence.
Yes, the minority may have more incentive, but if Democrats are firm in their convictions, they should have no problem with a public debate and vote. As I understand it, the objective is to keep legislation from sitting in limbo, but if the committee does its job this would be a moot point.
We don’t know the unstated objectives or consequences, intended or unintended. On something like this, it’s hard to know what’s what without being an insider.
It seems to me that the problem isn’t necessarily that too few bills come out of committee. That’s a symptom. The problem is that the committees are not really allowed to work their will by the leadership.
What’s wrong with the leadership making all the decisions?
That system works in many countries around the globe.