The Globe confirms that at tomorrow’s House session, at which the rules for the 2015-2016 session will be debated, Speaker Robert DeLeo is planning to ask members to abolish the eight-year term limit on the Speakership that the current rules impose:
House Rule 14A: No member shall hold, for more than eight consecutive years, the office of Speaker of the House. For purposes of this rule, the counting of consecutive years shall commence on January 7, 2009.
If you want to communicate your views on the proposal to abolish Rule 14A to your elected Representative, here’s some information you might find helpful.
1. On May 10, 2009, the Globe published an op-ed by Speaker DeLeo, in which he praised the House for its wisdom in reforming various of its practices. The reimposition of an eight-year term limit on the Speakership was among the improvements he praised. Excerpt below (emphasis on term limits added):
Boston Globe, May 10, 2009
Section: Editorial Opinion
House on the road to reform
Robert DeLeo
In the few months I have been speaker, the Massachusetts House has done what many thought it was incapable of doing: Amid a global economic downturn and statewide fiscal crisis, the House has embraced change and reform.
Massachusetts is paying for the sins of the past. Some of those sins we committed ourselves – such as allowing a dysfunctional transportation system to persist long after it was known to be unsustainable. Some are the result of much larger forces that sent the global economy into a free fall. Regardless of their origin, what is critical is that we find quick and thoughtful solutions to the challenges.
Real change in the House cannot come from fiat or edict. As speaker, I must balance the concerns and interests of 158 other members – all of whom represent distinct cities and towns with their own specific interests.
Yet even with those obstacles, we have accomplished much.
In order to restore public confidence in the government, the House passed ethics, pension, rules, and transportation reform measures that change the face of state government for the better…
On rules reform, the House reinstituted an eight-year term-limit for the speaker and put in place new measures to combat phantom voting…
It will take the courage and commitment of every elected leader, and every citizen as well, to get us through these most difficult of times.
Democratic Representative Robert DeLeo of Winthrop is speaker of the Massachusetts House.
2. The February 11, 2009, roll call vote, at which the House members approved rules changes, including the eight-year term limit, is here.
TheBestDefense says
only because the House members who were once the pro-democracy crowd sold out to DeLeo in order to get special privileges as members of “leadership.” Story from Amherst, Linsky from Natick and Kulick of Worthington were quick to dump their principles to be part of Team DeLeo.
Is there any better proof of their willingness to shed principle? Somebody needs to explain why they bowed down for DiMasi against casinos, and then changed directions for DeLeo.
Finneran’s failing was his inability to reach toward the left. DeLeo’s success is because he co-opted the left, most of whom just want status and the occasional local goody, not political change. Democratic fakery is this.
TheBestDefense says
I wrote “Democratic fuckery is this”. Not fakery. DeLeo intends to stay in that office for a long time.
stomv says
Sometimes it’s not a mistake, just a happy little accident.
chris-rich says
And preferably with a minimum of heavy lifting, ascertainment, outreach, consensus alignment or constituency building even as the demographic make up of the region is undergoing watershed changes.
That’s the problem, everyone is seemingly too busy to do the actual work or too broke to hire someone.
Peter Porcupine says
While the Minority Leader has served even longer, he has also been reelected in contested leadership elections.
The Democrats do not allow this – kow-tow or die appears to be their leadership model.
Without allowing discussion, the only leadership path is Mushroom Model – whispers in dark rooms….
TheBestDefense says
Grab a helmet to keep the brain splatter down. I want more Repubs in the House, but I just wish they were not TeaParty nutters.
Brad Jones is smart and decent. He chooses places to object where I sometimes disagree but he is a lot more straight than his Democratic counterparts.
TheBestDefense says
in this DeLeo power grab. Nobody gives a shit about Kulick but the Reps from two of our most progressive communities matter. Let’s keep watching the House
Mark L. Bail says
Ellen was completely shut out by Finneran because she didn’t follow the party line. That meant she couldn’t get anything done for her district, of which I am a member. I’m not saying you shouldn’t blame her, just that this isn’t a purely ideological decision.
I emailed John Scibak, who seems to have voted with the Republicans last time and also represents Granby, and Ellen and voiced my opposition to raising the limit of the speaker’s term.
TheBestDefense says
but her behavior now does not get a pass while she does does bad stuff for DeLeo. It is especially painful to see her being the mouthpiece for DeLeo over and over. She is much too good for that role.
Christopher says
Maybe this will be the impetus to put forward a progressive candidate for Speaker next time around, one who is willing to keep the term limits and put in place other aspects of shared leadership.
TheBestDefense says
because all of the others are tainted for never having objected to DeLeo, and your neighbor Brian Dempsey, ostensibly the next in line, is even scummier. My guess is that there will be a little shit storm when the members have to take responsibility for mega sized budget cuts in the next few months. They will do all they can to blame it on Baker but it ain’t his fault.
Christopher says
…and run a whole slate of people in primaries to vote for that person, but I’m sure that’s not realistic. An incumbent would have to claim a change of heart.
TheBestDefense says
that in a one party state like MA, getting the Democratic nomination for a legislative seat is usually like getting elected. And once elected, the system reinforces the power structure. The Speaker/Senate President always wins. The relevant issue is how good or bad the leader is. I have hopes for Rosenberg but I won’t hold my breath waiting for great output. He is not Neo, he is part of the system.
And Baker will reinforce the leadership structure for now, even if six months from now he complains about it. Mark the date at July 1, the date for the new budget. The table thumping will begin.
chris-rich says
To deal with DeLeo, you have to organize his district from the bottom up.
Step 1: Ascertainment. Are there significant numbers of new residents who lack any traditional basis for caring about DeLeo?
If so then we go to..
Step 2. Outreach. Can these constituents be brought into the electoral process, possibly with a candidate of their own?
If so then we are at
Step 3. Constituency building. Can these constituents, who are likely to have diverse concerns and interests, be persuaded to support an alternative candidate?
Which would get us to
Step 4. Consensus Alignment.
Can the party take this newly cohered constituency and make it an ongoing part of a shift?
Politics is a blood sport for the ward heeler caucus but more of a dabbling hobby for what passes for progressives. They are marginalized because they are marginal.
Christopher says
The fantasy is you primary a bunch of Dems, which I agree is tantamount to election in many districts, and those Dems remain a coalition to elect one of their own AND overhaul the rules.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t think Mr. DeLeo will be unseated in his own district, and I don’t think more than a handful of legislators who are Democratic Party members will oppose his leadership in any significant way. I think the only way we’re going to rid ourselves of Mr. DeLeo is to rid ourselves of a great many “Democrats”.
I think we desperately need a new party committed to liberal and progressive values — especially liberal and progressive economic values. We need legislators who actually represent voters who want to significantly raise taxes on wealth and the wealthy in order to restore even a modest degree of middle- and working-class stability in Massachusetts.
When the handful of progressive legislators (of any party) are the deciding vote for house leadership, they will have power.
Until then, we’re just tilting at windmills.
Trickle up says
Perfectly legal power grab, perfectly detestable.
TheBestDefense says
ready to endorse it. But let’s not just look at them. Under Finneran there was a culture of opposition. Now there is a culture of whoring. Let’s see if any Democrat opposes DeLeo on this. I ain’t holding my breath.
jconway says
Based on the feedback I got from the Reps I contacted it, it seems highly likely this proposal will go through, probably with a large majority of progressive legislators backing it. The sense I get from them is their backs are against the wall and it’s better to work within this system than take a symbolic vote that would isolate their ability to be effective for their constituents.
It’s easy to call them whores and sell outs and get disengaged from the process, but I think we all have to do a better job of seeing things from their side and creating the space for them to be able to organize and stand up. What incentives can the progressive grassroots, organizers in particular, give to these fence sitters who are ideologically opposed to DeLeo’s leadership but stuck between a rock and a hard place?
I am not critiquing your frustration, it’s my first temptation too, but after getting feedback from Reps I trust as honest well intentioned people who vote the right way more often than not, I think this approach won’t work. Clearly the sticks will be ignored, so what kind of carrots or cover can we give reps to make sure this is his last term or at least to get a more worthy successor? That’s the kind of long game we have to play now. DeLeo won Round 1.
jconway says
This proposal wouldn’t have been announced if he hadn’t already locked up the voted. He probably did it months ago.
TheBestDefense says
They are mostly permanently protected from ever being removed from office by the voters. They need to feel that sharp pain of a stick to their wrists so they remember that the next time when there is an issue that is seriously in play, they will lead, not follow.
I have four decades of experience in state and national legislative bodies on three continents, a good chunk of it in Massachusetts. The most important thing I have learned is that we need smart inside players like Judy Meredith and outsiders, the masses, who won’t accept the reassurances of legislators that some day things will get better and until then, they need to maintain their credibility and position of influence.
The only way this will be DeLeo’s last term is if our progressive standard bearers are forced to confront this institutional failure. Otherwise, he stays for as long as he wants. I do agree with you that this deal was locked months ago. That is what happens when there is no opposition to a low wattage middle of the road Democrat. As I wrote a few days ago, DeLeo played it smart when he brought the old reformers into his team while giving them very little power. After all is is better to have the camels in the tent pissing outwards, rather than outside the tent pissing inwards.
jconway says
What is the sharp stick we can offer? What are the carrots? Who are the climbers that can get to a majority of the vote two years from now? What can be done on the ground? How important is money at this level of government and is there enough of it from progressives to have leverage?
This is far more important to me than 2016 or 2018. I want progressive leadership on Beacon Hill far more than in the Corner Office or the White House.
TheBestDefense says
I do not give money to the Democratic Party after decades of being a fairly large dollar donor. I give money directly to candidates and the focused donor groups.
I give my money to the progressive organizations that wield a stick.
I am not shy about telling or writing about good legislators who let us down. Watch how quickly a rep or senator pays attention the next time you communicate with them after hitting them for a bad deed. One letter to the editor of the local paper stating your objection to the DeLeo scam, for example, will get their attention. For example, Jay Kaufman is probably pissing in his pants because I have mentioned him unfavorably here on BMG. The big difference between legislators and voters is that the legislators have a superior sense of their own importance. They freak when someone questions their wisdom.
When the local party does joint candidate work, I exclude working for the DINOs. I would prefer a larger GOP presence on the Hill. I just wish the GOP did not choose total whack jobs. Can’t we find any Frank Sargent or Frank Hatch today?
paulsimmons says
Without going into the merits or lack thereof of term limits, it should be remembered that Tom Menino ran on a platform of self-imposed term limits back in 1993:
What should be a point to consider is the larger political climate, wherein the greatest political currency for a politician is the value of one’s word, but only when that word is given to other players. Civilians don’t count; and most progressives are most emphatically not players.
progressivemax says
We need to focus on reforming this crazy system the puts all hands in the power of the speaker. It doesn’t matter who the speaker is. The fact is that the current system is undemocratic. Having one person be the key to passing laws is not a democracy. Every representative should have an equal say. Abolishing term limits moves us further away from our goal.
rcmauro says
If one person gets to be the leader all the time, no one else gets a chance. There are lots of good people there that should get a turn.
williamstowndem says
… even the blizzard wasn’t deep enough to cover this BS. If you succeed in pushing this through, you will provide evidence to confirm what most people think: that Great and General Court of Massachusetts is a farce.
rcmauro says
I can see where the Democratic representatives might want to close ranks and consolidate power, now that they have a governor of the opposing party in office. However, this does give the Massachusetts GOP a good talking point, as it fits into their narrative of entrenched interests running Beacon Hill.
Democrats should start listening more to Ed Lyons and Mike Freedberg. With Baker as their leader, the Republicans could start putting forward more credible moderate candidates who could represent a real choice. I don’t know all the facts here, but I think the Democrats should think twice before giving them an opening.
thinkliberally says
How many consecutive Speakers of the House have left the office in disgrace? We finally have a Speaker — albeit one I’m not a big fan of — who appears to be on his way to the first clean Speaker’s term in recent memory, and he’s not willing to rest on those laurels.
Bigger picture, this is the stuff that makes it harder to win the Governor’s office. When the top Democrats in the state grab power without consequence, it pushes more independents (and a fair number of Dems too) towards “balance”.
TheBestDefense says
He was an unindicted co-conspirator for his active corruption of the Probation Department. He was merely fortunate enough to have done his dirty deeds before the statute of limitations saved his bacon from hitting the frying pan. Do you remember him getting a job for his god-son, making the unqualified pup the youngest acting chief probation officer, at $82,000 per year.
DeLeo is the guy who kept Rep Tom Petrolati in the House leadership where he ran amuck in the Probation Department, even getting his wife a job as head of the electronic monitoring program, something she was unqualified for.
DeLeo was the DiMasi pal who, as Ways & Means chairman, used the budget to funnel money to DiMasi, which got DiMasi sent to jail.
Here is a run down from SouthCoastToday on DeLeo patronage games.
– Carol DeLeo, his sister, Secretary of State’s office; now she’s at the State Auditor’s office
–Vicki A. Mucci, his longtime girlfriend, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
–Ralph DeLeo, his cousin, Executive Office of Administration and Finance
–Joseph DeLeo, his cousin, the Revere Police Department
–Brian Mirasolo, his godson, acting chief probation officer, Administrative Office of the Trial Court
–15 people at the state Probation Department who contributed at least $850 apiece to his campaign.
DeLeo is clean? Bull shit.
thinkliberally says
…and I’ll grant that it stinks.
But let’s acknowledge that if every politician who got a relative a job had committed a crime, there’d be an awful lot of people doing time right now. I’m the last guy to stand behind DeLeo. Unindicted co-conspirator… Ok, clean is the wrong word here.
If I revise my word “clean” to “unconvicted”, does it at least make my point better? Ugh.
Good post.
Peter Porcupine says
“Unconvicted”
chris-rich says
Not all that many, surprisingly enough. Prior to the three stooges run of indictments, you have to go back to 1964.
And records don’t show much of a sleaze trend before, although they are less detailed as you head back to 1644 when the job began.
thinkliberally says
three. Accounting for a period of 18 years. Let’s not pretend that’s insignificant.
chris-rich says
It speaks volumes to the gawdawful toilet ethics and seedy nonsense of my own generation, the baby boomers.
Much of the work ahead is unwinding the built in slime traces my generation adorned the polity with. It’s work and heavy lifting up apathy hill.
judy-meredith says
Never did. A waste of precious institutional knowledge that contributes to uninformed, short sighted, reactionary policy making.
Especially since there does not appear to be candidates with a critical mass of supporters to mount a successful challenge.
Finally advice from those of us trying to advance positive policy, publicly characterizing current Legislators in Leadership positions as weak sell outs doesn’t help identify credible successors in the body.
theloquaciousliberal says
I’d urge you to rethink your position, in this particular case.
I, too, oppose term limits for legislators (Governors and Mayors are a different thing altogether).
HOWEVER, I see nothing wrong-headed in self-imposed term limits for leadership positions within a legislative body. The Boston City Council, wisely, decided about ten years ago to impose term limits on its own President. And the House decided to do that on its own in this case. In the City Council, that has worked well to diversify the leadership there. It could and should work well in the House too.
To me, there is a big fundamental difference here. Term limits within a legislative body have virtually no impact on the power of the voters themselves. And, as we’ll surely see today, the rule can be changed simply by a vote of the Legislators who imposed the term limits in the first place.
So, we get all the benefits of term limits (as DeLeo himself outlined) without hardly any of the downsides.
petr says
…The legislative bodies in question impose various restrictions and allow themselves various freedoms. That’s the permission we gave them when we elected them. It might be nothing wrong-headed, overall, if they restrict limits on on speakerships and/or other positions of leadership but that’s not our call to make. I don’t like Speaker DeLeo, but he’s the speaker not on my say-so, but on the say-so of the legislative body that elected him speaker. Repupblican systems aren’t guaranteed to avoid wrong-headedness.
Personally, I don’t think that I would have voted to impose term limits in 2009 so I don’t see voting against dropping them now, had I been in the house either time…
TheBestDefense says
for elected officials. They prohibit voters from being able to choose who they want to represent them. That was the basis, BTW, for the state SJC knock down of the ballot question that would have imposed them.
I DO support term limits for leadership positions within legislative bodies. There is more than enough talent and experience within the legislature to replace DeLeo but too many of the members sell us and themselves short (Kaufman, Story, Linsky) because they suck up. The breath of fresh air that is slightly blowing through the Senate would be even more welcome in the House.
jconway says
I emailed several Reps and seemed to get this as one of the two reasons to vote for the Speaker’s proposal. The first was that he did move the ball on some issues that progressives favor, and that the risk of being frozen out and isolated mattered far more than the rewards of taking what in the end is an utterly symbolic vote. The facts seem to be that this vote was locked up months ago.
I think working with progressives allies in the House to find that candidate and get critical support behind them now, two years out from the next vote, rather than a week before the next vote, has to be the key next step we take. And frankly it matters far more to the progressive movement in Massachusetts than the 2016 presidential race or the 2018 gubernatorial race.
Peter Porcupine says
Who were they fooling, other than progressives that they needed to give money, work the phones, etc.?
judy-meredith says
Who was lying and why are you asking me why?
Peter Porcupine says
I was referring to your assertion that term limits were a ‘waste of precious institutional knowledge’. I don’t agree, but you can make a case for that.
So why did DeLeo run on term limits? Aming progressives, this was important – and they are committed workers – was hoodwinking them the plan?
Obama will close Gitmo, DeLeo will step down graciously and become first among equals, mentoring his successor with wise advice. Democrats will stop taking quarters out of the photocopy machines after hours.
A Democrat doesn’t flipflop – they evolve.
Or devolve.
paulsimmons says
Wink-wink stuff.
And not limited by Party affiliation.
Not dissimilar to the “evolution” of the relationship between Bill Weld and Billy Bulger back in the day…
Animal House politics…
Peter Porcupine says
…a Republican did something wrong once.
paulsimmons says
In my opinion Weld’s establishment of good personal and professional relationships with Bulger was the correct and politically constructive thing to do.
Anything else would have been infantile self-indulgence on Weld’s part.
My point is that politics aren’t morality plays.
johntmay says
Take your garden variety slightly informed independent voter who believes in fairness, balance, and has a dose of mistrust for both parties. Now give that voter this power grab….and watch them support the Republican.
If I am putting out a campaign ad for my Republican candidate, this stuff is grist to the mill.
williamstowndem says
This is all many independents will need to convince them that the House Dems not only have a tin political ear but that they are also totally, utterly, and unregrettably arrogant. And that means those of us in the trenches, come election day, will have to overcome ever higher obstacles.
scott12mass says
Personally I was convinced long ago (ex state income tax rate), but I hope this gives third parties a chance to establish legitimacy.
Peter Porcupine says
They think you are corrupt liars.
HR's Kevin says
If Independents really thought that we obviously would not have so many Democrats in office.
Peter Porcupine says
Look at how many votes are cast for Gov/Pres, and how the down ticket races are ignored.
petr says
Most independents that I have met, including many members of my own family, consider themselves “independent” precisely and exactly because they think both parties are full of arrogant and corrupt liars.
It might come as little surprise — or not — that I think they are wrong: without denying the existence of a few corrupt liars in the Democratic party I’ll simply state that the ideology of the right is itself corrupt and cannot but invite the arrogant and the untruthful and, similarly, cannot admit anyone who’s not into rank ambition and naked self-interest… not to mention self-righteousness…
Christopher says
…that independent does not necessarily mean partisan or ideological fence-straddler. There are independents out there, including I believe a few active BMGers, who don’t want to belong to the party for reasons mentioned on this thread, but who nevertheless pretty consistently vote Democratic. We need to address both real and perceived institutional problems if the goal is to expand our official registration rolls.