As clear evidence of the undue amount of power held by the speaker, Speaker DeLeo has removed Representative Jonathan Hecht for the Vice Chairmanship of the Committee on Elder Affairs. This was likely due to the fact that Hecht spoke out against removing the term limits for the Speakership. Representatives should be able to speak their minds without recourse. The speakers actions go against the very ideals of the democratic process, the ideals that every representative has an equal say. I hope the next speaker will be true to the the ideals of the democratic process. (I wish we could get Rep Hecht in there)
Please share widely!
Committee leadership should be elected by the whole House, the majority caucus, or the committee iteslf IMO.
I’d prefer committee appointments be selected by two committee on committees, one for each party, the members of which are chosen by lot. Nebraska has a committee on committees elected by ballot. I agree committees should choose their own chairs.
I certainly hope that Mr. DeLeo is a very bright spot on the radar screen of the US Attorney’s office. Between his power grab and casino gambling, it seems like he presents a target-rich engagement.
a nominee of the Speaker, House members cannot even NOMINATE a colleague to serve on a committee in their stead. The Speaker just chooses another lackey.
is Lowell Rep Tom Golden, a former DiMasi goon, who was named to chair the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee. His response: “”Energy seems to be a very hot topic…I’m very fortunate the speaker chose me,” he said.
Those of us who care about any of these topics are less fortunate.
…who (albeit not on the Committee) will probably be the Alpha player on energy issues for the House side.
You can endorse the Republican candidate for governor, and be a committee chairman in a Democratic house. However, if you ask for a more democratic house, you get the basement office and caucus banishment.
DeLeo would have been well advised to give Hecht the chairmanship of some committee of little interest to the Speaker, but what do I know.
He can be reelected in his own district for as long as he likes and get whatever vote he wants through the House with ease. He doesn’t have to care what anyone here or anywhere else thinks.
always have two constituencies: the one back home where they are almost always safe, and the voters who elevate them to their real positions of power. For the past two decades, squeezing rank and file members and committee chairs in their districts has been the most effective way to put pressure on the presiding office, in this instance DeLeo.
Progressive Reps will admit in private they are powerless to move DeLeo but won’t say it in public. As the list of DeLeo’s offenses against democracy grows, those Reps will move ever so slightly away from DeLeo. DeLeo chose to use fear to let everyone know what he will do to dissenters. That is not a stable long term strategy to run the House.
Finneran seems to make the whole fealty or punishment scheme work very effectively. This is why Chelmsford, home of former Rep. Carol Cleven, was drawn and quartered into small pieces of four legislative districts.
No real outcry at the time since it couldn’t happen to one of US…..
When they came for the Jews….
chatting endlessly about Cleven, as he was working in the Lowell school system (do I have that right Pablo?) and some House Dems also objected, but the House GOP leadership was glad to be rid of that kind and decent woman.
Context:
That leads to a wonderful little quote from Republican Ed Teague of Yarmouth, who told Jeff Jacoby, “Tell you the truth, Tommy Finneran is solid as a rock. He’s more ethical and moral than I am. I’ll go out of here feeling great for knowing that one of the three key people in the state — the speaker of the House — is a sober, honest, legitimate, decent guy.”
In any case, Cleven aligned herself with the liberal and reform* oriented reps who were primary opposition to Finneran’s leadership. Given that the Republican caucus was the source of Finneran’s power, I am sure the evisceration of the Chelmsford seat in the Great and General Court was as popular with the Republican leadership as it was with Finneran.
Chelmsford is still split among four districts, so that town is still being punished for Cleven’s independent streak.
*reform, meaning Finneran shouldn’t decide everything.
His seat was taken by Tom George who DID speak up for Cleaven as minority member on Redistricting. So not sure how your attribution hangs together.
His whole perjury trial came about because he was looking to eliminate a progressive Democratic seat west of Boston in the 2001 redistricting. He made the courteous mistake of notifying the affected Reps about the contents of a not-yet-announced map that he’d claimed under oath to know nothing about.
Finneran’s primary goal was to protect the district of Rep Kevin Fitzgerald, a progressive in JP/Mission Hill whose district had turned majority-minority. He had a good personal relationship with Finneran so Finneran carved up the western burbs to protect Fitzie and give him a more Anglo district, denying minorities an adequate chance at representation. That precipitated a federal Voting Rights Act complaint and the ever-pugnacious Finneran lied under oath that he engineered it so he was convicted of perjury.
The map was redrawn to block Finneran’s shenanigans and he was driven from office but Carol Cleven lost her seat. And now Finneran is back as a lobbyist.
Reps. Khan and Balser were put into the same district on that map to protect the seat of now-Sheriff Koutoujian.
No real outcry at the time since it couldn’t happen to one of US…..
When they came for the Jews….
…and as I recall it crossed party lines. I also seem to recall that Cleven was to the left of many with Ds after their names, not to mention Rs.
Because the Governor is their enemy as well as the go-along-get-along House. They blew their chance to forge an effective progressive caucus while Patrick was in office. Now they will reap the bitter fruits of that lost opportunity. Voices crying in the wildness, unless there is some major change in the existing power dynamic, more’s the pity.
This is a large part of why I was so disappointed in our nomination of Ms. Coakley.
not the progressive legislators. Once Deval got the nomination, largely because of the support given him by progressive legislators in the early stages of his campaign, he and started dropping them (thanks, Doug Rubin!).
Set aside the small stupidities of the early days (the Cadillac and the drapes). He and his team were so certain of their righteousness that they thought they did not need allies in the lege.
In his first months in office he seemed like he was determined to piss off the progressives who were with him in the earliest stages. The first blowout was with Dan Bosley of North Adams appointment to a job in the admin, which Bosley later rejected when it was not what he had been told it was, at a time when Bosley had more credibility in the House than Deval ever attained in eight years. He embarrassed Steve Kulik of Worthington in his district around dairy support, one of Kulik’s signature issues. He screwed Jim Marzilli of Arlington on issues related to the Mystic Lake in the heart of his district, taxes and energy policy, his signature policies.
The list of Deval’s early progressive supporters who got hosed is long and led to a come-to-Jesus-meeting where all reports are that he did not even pretend to listen. Then he appointed a couple of legislators who did not support him in the campaign, people who were so ill-matched to the jobs (Doug Peterson at Agriculture and Mike Festa at Elder Affairs) that they quickly flamed out.
I have trash talked House progressives on BMG in the past but Deval owns this failure. There was a very effective progressive caucus in the House before Deval, twice getting MA the highest minimum wage in the nation, expansion of the earned income tax credit, restoration of the capital gains tax and, with the leadership of DiMasi, the state’s universal health care plan. The self-righteous Devalistas divided that team and kicked it to the curb. It is not the progressive legislators who will reap bitter fruits, it is the people of Massachusetts.
to mention Kulik’s leadership on the telecomm tax on wires that would have funded muni government, as befitting his previous leadership role at the MMA. When you piss off a pragmatic insider liberal like Bosley, a leader of local government like Kulik, and a crafty lefty ideologue like Marzilli, then you have hit the hat trick.
Deval had enough popularity that he could have squeezed middle of the road dems to join with the progressives, using his campaign apparatus, but quickly backed off that — fearing the battle.
All it would have taken was to win one or two of those battles, or break the back of one or two dems (up to and including recruiting and fundraising primary opponents), and he could have had his way with the House for 8 years. Raised taxes, cut significantly more corporate loopholes, got through actual bills he wanted… pretty much anything.
pre-convention and worked hard on the campaign.
Festa had a lengthy history of advocating for seniors and had the support of senior groups when the gov’s office re-organized Elder Affairs and the budget – leading to the departure of Festa.
but Deleo’s a jerk for appointing his loyalists…..Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
Deval Patrick messed up by not rewarding those who were energetic and effective advocates for the progressive vision that got Deval Patrick elected. Bob DeLeo is a jerk for valuing personal fealty above all else. Both messed up by putting positions on governance, vision, and policy well behind self-serving political motivations.
There is no conflict here, except in the minds and comments of those who, like Mr. DeLeo, value party loyalty above good governance, good policy, and progressive values.
I presume that kittyoneil is not among that group.
Just kidding. BUT I can’t stand the inconsistencies in the positions of some out there relative to Patrick v. the legislature. It was pretty widespread for 8 years. E.G.
The House only debated the casino bill for 2 days! The Governor put his bill together 100% behind the scenes.
Legislative leaders don’t reward dissent!
The administration walked and talked in nearly 100% lockstep for 8 YEARS
DiMasi, Deleo, and Murray made calls for constituents for jobs!
Deval hired every 2 bit hack in New England during his decade in power
These all relate to the “good governance” bucket that you describe. I have no gripes with Patrick on policy or progressive values. I think they did a decent enough job pushing a progressive agenda that they truly believed in. There were some huge missteps, but also some huge successes.
BUT it drives me insane that the legislature is held to higher standards of good governance than the administration.
I share the view expressed by others that Deval Patrick was not served well by the advisers he relied on in his first term. I was enormously frustrated by his support for casino gambling, and expressed that here.
My assumption/perception was that Governor Patrick thought (wrongly) that by embracing the priorities of Bob DeLeo and the lege, he would get support for his own initiatives. When Deval Patrick put forward his courageous proposal in 2012 to raise taxes on the wealthy and move the state towards a sustainable foundation, he was betrayed and embarrassed by Bob DeLeo’s immediate and scornful rejection of the proposal.
Deval Patrick NEVER did anything comparable to the role Bob DeLeo played in the Probation Department scandal. Deval Patrick never did anything comparable to Mr. DeLeo’s consolidation of power after the November elections.
The legislature — by the very intentional effort of the legislature — holds ALL the power of state government today. In my view, that intentional positioning of the legislature demands that the legislature be held to a correspondingly high standard of good governance.
It drives ME insane that Democrats have had unchallenged and complete domination of this state’s government for eight years, and the state is in MUCH worse condition than it was eight years ago.
We Democrats have had the power we need, and we have abused that power. That drives me insane.
See, that’s where you’re exactly wrong…He was doing the same damn thing, all over government.
Specifics please. There has never been an allegation of corruption against DLP of which I am aware. Say what you will about effectiveness or disagree with his policies, but he was about as clean as they come. BTW, anything you want to disclose about your connections to the Speaker? You only seem to comment to come to his defense.
Either you aren’t aware of how just how many girlfriends, god-children, spouses of assistants, and so on Bob DeLeo had Mr. O’Brien put on the Probation Department payroll, or you are deceitfully counting on your readers not knowing. Your attack on Deval Patrick is despicable gossip of the worst sort.
Mr. Patrick was most certainly NOT “doing the same damn thing, all over government”. You offer no substantiation because there is none.
This, in fact, is the kind of “Democratic” attitude that is destroying our party’s effectiveness.
were not looking for jobs or financial rewards. They wanted the policy ally who campaigned on their issues to use their experience in legislating. The know-it-alls who Deval brought to the Hill were not up to the task which is why the first term was so rocky and why he made so few inroads into the mainstream of the Democrats, people who needed his help to stand up against DeLeo’s worst instincts.
to some extent, the problem with outsiders in government: they don’t know how to govern, particularly when it comes to intragovernmental politics. There is a flip side to the problem with insiders in government.
… to the extent that entrenched fiefdoms, habitude and/or that the flow of power goes into erosions of long used, and long unchallenged, grooves and channels, any new or different type of thinking — regardless of insider/outsider status — is going to create this dynamic. The longer the time insiders spend getting cozy with each other, the harsher the difference between insiders and outsiders. It’s fairly axiomatic that insiders are going to play the inside game and not rile each other up and it’s equally axiomatic that outsiders are going to rile insiders. I blame the insiders, primarily, for this dynamic as they are not entitled to their coziness — as well as the fact that the system is set up to introduce outsiders more or less periodically.
Or, put another way, it is the insiders corrupting the system and the outsiders who are likely to bring the system back into some form of workability… continually re-learning how to govern is part of the system.
But I’m not sure I believe it. The ideal candidate would be an outsider who can play the insider’s game. Patrick changed Beacon Hill culture not very much at all. Patrick couldn’t do this. He was a great retail politician on the campaign trail, but my guess is that he couldn’t play the politics needed on Beacon Hill. He always seemed to be irrelevant to whatever what was going on. Our own insiders might be able to say more about that.
I’ve been reading Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson and thinking a lot about politics. At my local level, I’ve been slow learning and practicing the typical political skills like self-promotion. I focus on being transparent, informative, and honest. I’m nice and all, but working for more professional politicians, I see all the things that I don’t do and don’t know how to do. Johnson was (among other things), a political genius. He wormed his way inside and used the inside to help people. He became the ultimate insider.
I think you’re right about Johnson’s political genius, but he also had experience and personality to add to it. Some people say that people like Patrick and Obama might have benefited from having some low level political office in their background.
As much as people lament gridlock in DC I’m not sure they are advocating a return to the Johnson era, when massaging committee chairmen’s egos and sending pork to their district was the way to get things done. Or maybe it would be better, but unlikely we would return to the powerful chairman system.
I mentioned it before, but Caro paints Bobby Kennedy in a very bad light. A real d*ck even. Interesting given his memory in MA.
would have benefited from more experience. I’m reading the first book. I read the second first. Johnson was a gifted politician, though he doesn’t seem to have had much of a moral compass.
I haven’t read anything that didn’t refer to Bobby Kennedy as a prick. Maybe he changed as he aged.
which covers the 1960 convention and Johnson as VP.
… a little like asking that the Navy be as piratical as the pirates?
At some point corruption — and let us not mince words — overwhelms. If the game, inside, is rigged, it’s a little dicey to ask someone to amorally jump in from the outside and un-rig it: they are as likely, if able, to simple dismantle the old game and set up a newer, equally pernicious, system in its place, only rigged for their benefit instead of for the benefit of the previous insiders… I think that’s a little like what happened after Weld picked the CommonWealths pockets clean and wandered off: after the lege saw what Weld got away with in the Big Dig they sorta wanted in on that action. Boy, did they. To this day.
I think Deval did alright, given the level of corruption: he found which buttons to push to approximate action and he got movement, though (as we’ve seen) not much in the way of precision or finesse: push the button that’s labelled “sales tax’ and he gets ‘gas tax’. Push the button that says “gas tax” and he gets ‘sales tax’. Push the button that says ‘reform’ and they implemented reform poorly.
I’m not sure we could have asked for more without inviting a CommonWealth version of Huey Long to settle in.
My point exactly: Johnson, within that space you term “among other things” had a flexibility of ethic and a willingness to stretch the very definition of pragmatism that others were either not willing to match or just weren’t as good at. Johnson did accomplish a lot and he also destroyed a lot… and there’s a reason very few politicians try to emulate him.
on corruption. Yes, there is some corruption. DiMasi committed a serious crime in my book. DeLeo? It remains to be seen. It’s not the problem.
Patrick did what he did. What he did well, good on him. What he did poorly, well, that’s life. He was the better choice. That’s all we can expect. I don’t know what you mean by pushing buttons, that this was literally the case or metaphorically so?
I don’t know enough to agree or disagree with you on Weld. I’ll let you know about John when I get further along in his biography. People are different at different times in their lives and motivated by different things at other times as well.