Fix Beacon Hill IS NOT anti-government, anti-legislature or anti-Democratic Party. We are simply advocates for good government, which we believe includes a deliberative, representative, democratic process in the branch of government for which such a process was designed.
Recent editorials about FixBeaconHill.com can be found in the Patriot Ledger, New Bedford Standard-Times, and Metrowest Daily News.
Interested? Read the the “at-a-glance” version of the story below, or go to http://www.fixbeaconhill.com
- Massachusetts’ Constitution currently states that each chamber of our legislature shall — elect it’s Speaker/President, appoint its leaders and set its own rules — that’s it.
- Throughout the 6+ decades of dominant, single party control (90% or more today) Speakers/Presidents have consistently tightened their control over their respective chamber.
Today, the Speaker & President, in their respective chamber, control:
| Appointment of all leaders (& extra pay) | Appointment of committee chairs & vice chairs (& extra pay) |
| Appointment of all committee members | Every aspect of the flow of legislation **** |
| Members’ office space | Members’ office budget and staff |
| Where members sit in the chamber | Where members park |
| Distribution of party PAC money | And more… |
**** Including whether a bill ever gets voted upon. Often times when a bill is referred out for a vote it goes from committee to caucus to floor vote in a matter of hours; leaving no time for review by anyone (which is how/why all kinds of nonsense gets slipped into these bills.)
The system above has fostered decades of waste, fraud, pension abuse, patronage, inferior legislation, indictments, bribes, lobbying scandals, etc. — all of which are merely symptoms of the problem. The real problem is that one person in each body holds near absolute power. If a legislator does not “go along to get along,” he/she is marginalized by leadership and often times “punished.” Under these conditions, how effective are the individuals that your district elected to represent you? Your legislator must choose between capitulation or retribution.
There have been many efforts to address this in the past through rules changes within the body, but these have always proven to be short-lived and tantamount to the “fox watching the henhouse.” Legislation has been attempted, but a law cannot be passed that usurps what the constitution currently says. So, the only option that provides any permanence is a Constitutional Amendment; hence http://www.fixbeaconhill.com.
FixBeaconHill.com’s proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Require Speaker and President to be elected by secret ballot (just like we elect all of our leaders)
- Allow Speaker/President to appoint 4 positions (Pro Tempore, Majority & Asst. Majority Leaders, Chair of Ways & Means)
- Require each chamber to elect a Committee on Committees
- any member can be on ballot for CoC except those in #1 & #2 above
- CoC does the functions currently controlled by Speaker/President (in table above)
- CoC’s work is then put to floor for a vote
- Prevent the Legislature from exempting itself from open meeting laws (which it currently does)
- Require the Legislature to produce a detailed budget for each chamber
So, how can you help? There are many ways, including:
| Commit to getting 100 signatures | Commit to enlisting friends/family to do the same |
| Voice your support with your legislators | Volunteer to gather signatures at your fall Town Meeting or Town/County Fair |
| Reach out to any media contacts you have | Contact your local newspaper for a story |
| Donate to the cause – any amount helps | Give a presentation to local fraternal group(s) |
If you are comfortable with it, could you fill us in on your political background. I know that you talked to the town committees. Was it both D and R’s.
<
p>You did note that it is bi-partisan, I’m trying to get a sense if this is Democratic grass roots movement or something else.
The problem, in my view, is pervasive deep-root corruption in local government — both moral and venal. I see this as a cultural issue, and I don’t think the proposed solution is either (a) needed, (b) appropriate, or (c) workable.
<
p>I think a better and more immediate way of addressing the immediate problem is an aggressive full-scale high-profile RICO-style federal investigation and prosecution. I think it has to be federal, because our state prosecutors are entrapped in the same corrupt system as the many honest state representatives and senators.
<
p>I remain convinced that most state representatives and senators, as well as most local city and town officials, are honest, hard-working, dedicated public servants. They are, therefore, essentially powerless to stop the criminally corrupt thugs that dominate the leadership.
<
p>Meanwhile, all are surrounded by and swim in a sea filled with sharks feeding from the public trough. Corrupt leaders for public service unions (police, fire, MBTA, etc.). Corrupt attorneys, lobbyists, even doctors (see the disability scams). Police thugs who terrorize construction sites when their overtime is threatened.
<
p>I think it will take aggressive high-profile federal prosecutions to clean this mess up — far more than sensationalized videos of a clearly disturbed African-American state senator. We need to see people like Tom Menino and his aids perp-walked to a waiting car (let’s not forget Buddy Cianci). We need to see ALL the associates and “friends” of Sal DiMasi getting their fifteen minutes of fame on their way to a long quiet “vacation” in a federal penitentiary.
<
p>It seems clear enough to me that we cannot do it ourselves, we NEED federal intervention. The GOP is dead here, a long string of GOP governors accomplished NOTHING (or made matters worse), and I see no mechanism (including the process embodied in the proposed constitutional amendment) that will be nearly as effective as the approach I’m suggesting.
<
p>What is Patrick Fitzgerald working on these days?
I actually don’t want to see perp-walks and prison time for elected officials as if they were hardened criminals. To me jail shoud be reserved for those whose physical freedom threatens the security of the person and property of the rest of us. In other words, I’m not going to feel safer walking the streets of Boston alone at night knowing Tom Menino is behind bars. Appropriate punishments would be fines (large enough that they aren’t just the cost of doing business), impeachment/expulsion and prohibition on holding public office, disbarrment if they are attorneys. We could also give court’s the power to declare legislation null and void if it can be proven that bribery played a role.
Some laws define misdemeanors and some define felonies. Both have a range of penalties from wrist slap to incarceration.
<
p>If we are a country of laws, we don’t excuse a class of people for accountability under the law.
<
p>If we do that, we have a two class justice system, one for powerful elected leaders and one for the rest; then we also have a problem with equal protection under the law and in so doing fundamentally undermine our US justice. Have some faith in our system of laws. Investigate and prosecute where evidence exists that laws were broken.
I have a philosophical objection to jailing anybody who’s physical liberty does not threaten the public safety. I’m not at all suggesting that the laws should be written to provide for different sentences for the same crimes based on one’s status in society. If Mayor Menino committed murder, by all means lock him up.
Do you think Bernie Madoff should not get any jail time because he is unlikely to harm anyone?
If the prisons are overcrowded I’d definitely say violent criminals are more important to lock up and Madoff should have to pay a fine larger than the total he stole from people. Of course, since stealing is essentially what he did, albeit not violently, then that is a crime against property and as such there may be an argument for incarceration.
If the worst a white collar criminal has to worry about is having to pay back the money they got caught stealing plus a fine, then what is to stop them? Especially when the authorities often don’t have evidence to prosecute the full extent of their crimes.
Funny, it sure as heck would stop me. If the law said you have to pay say twice as much as you stole I know I’d think twice. Like I say, though, it is a crime against property and thus imprisonment may be appropriate.
That’s why you’re not Bernie Madoff. đŸ˜‰
<
p>Seriously, a fine would be no deterrent whatsoever to someone like Madoff, because he discounts whatever the value of the fine is by the likelihood of getting caught, and he thinks he’s so clever that he’ll never get caught, so the actual cost in his mind of the fine is practically zero. I mean, do you really think that the possibility of prison time was less scary to him than a fine? Yet the prospect of prison doesn’t seem to have deterred him.
Madoff is the exception here, but most white collar criminals do very little prison time in relatively pleasant facilities. It really is not much of a deterrent when the vast majority of white collar criminals are never prosecuted.
<
p>Putting him in prison does prevent him from committing further crimes (if for no other reason to pay his fines đŸ˜‰ It sure would have been nice if Albert Gonzales had been put away for serious time the first couple of times he was caught.
Paying back twice what you stole? You spend what you stole, and don’t even have 100% of the value, no less 200%. Once you’ve been convicted, you will certainly have a hard time gaining employment sufficient to earn back that money.
<
p>So what do you do with Madoff, a man who will never be able to pay back 100% (no less 200%) of what he stole?
<
p>
<
p>If you can’t recoup his money, you take his time.
…you go to jail. But if you steal my identity and steal $50,000 from me (actually credit card companies, retailers, insurance companies and me) then you get probation? On a lot of levels that is wrong and an unfair weighing of justice and frankly it does create a class of “street” crimes that will have greater punishment than white collar stealing.
or at least synthesized it better compared to when I first commented. I do believe that what you described is a jailable offense. It is a crime against property and it may well be the restricting the offender’s liberty is the only way to prevent him from doing it again.
Running a large federal prosecutors office Southern District of Illinois and preparing for the Gov. Blagojevich trial. You, no doubt, remember Fitz saying that if Abe Lincoln saw the evidence he had on Blago he’d roll over in his grave.
I to think we need to get radical to shake up the deadwood system of public (and private) institutions that are serving us poorly in these changing times. But a RICO style perp walk can’t happen because much of what we have is honest graft in which no laws are broken. Why wouldn’t that be the case…the politicians, lobbyist and their paying clients wrote the damn rules/laws, do you think they’d make they way they conduct business illegal…of course not. Sure, some get to greedy and stupid (DiMasi, Wilkerson, ect) or to arrogant (Finneran), but for the most part the table is slanted towards honest graft.
<
p>Which brings me to my question…if you so throughly reconize the graft in the system, how can you advocate (in other postings) to ask people to contribute more money–in the form of increased taxes–to a broken system? Now you may dismiss that comment as “falling into a Republican talking point”, maybe so, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a fair point…one that resonants with people. Progressives must break this unholy alliance that seems to rule Beacon Hill.
If you’ll check my comments and posts here, I think you’ll see that I have strongly argued just what you suggest. In fact, I have said repeatedly (to the occasional chagrin of some more senior BMG participants) that we fall into a Republican talking-point when we do NOT address the perception of corruption.
<
p>You asked:
<
p>Here is what I wrote in my very first diary upon joining BMG last March (and have consistently argued since then):
<
p>Unless you can offer a better way to fund the investments so desperately needed in transportation infrastructure, health care, and education, then I encourage you to stop seeking excuses to avoid taxes and start seeking ways to make them happen.
<
p>The economic and social costs of continuing our tax-cutting madness are exploding, piling up by the week, and the claimed benefits are long gone.
<
p>We need significant new tax revenue now — and we need to end the culture of corruption in order to obtain it.
Save a lot trouble trying to change the constitution (which always makes me nervous)
John,
<
p>I have no problem responding. FBH is an open book.
<
p>As far as political background, I was raised in a liberal Democratic family, but am an Independent today. I have never held, nor run for, elective office. And, I have no plans or designs to do so.
<
p>FHB is not backed by any political party, industry or lobbying group. We are a non-partisan, 100% grassroots organization with the sole mission of restoring a deliberative, representative democracy on Beacon Hill. It sprang from a project as part of a mid-career degree program. After 18 months of research, I presented my findings in June 2009. At that point, I couldn’t simply walk away. So, FBH was born.
<
p>FBH has tried, and will continue, to contact all Town Committees – Democratic and Republican. We have also reached out to many groups with business before the Legislature today. We believe firmly that ALL groups, citizens, towns and parties will benefit from an open, deliberative, representative, democratic process – so we seek to enlist all to help gather signatures.
<
p>I hope I’ve answered your questions.
<
p>Thanks!
<
p>Chris
Who else is involved, Chris, and are their “open meetings” of your group? Inquiring minds want to know.
I’m not sure I’d go as far as constitutionalizing internal rules, but I definitely take your point and see where you’re coming from. I’ve thought for a long that the Speaker/President should be elected by secret ballot, but I would have the whole chamber elect committee chairs and party caucuses elect floor leaders and assistants, also by secret ballot. Non-leadership members should choose committee assignments and office space in order of seniority. Any legislation reported out of committee should be considered by the full chamber in the order in which it was reported. Based on recent discussions we’ve had here I am decidedly unenthusiastic about expanding the scope of open meeting laws.
The problem isn’t the system — it’s the people within it. As with Mayah Forevah Menino, it’s not the rules of the game, it’s that somebody is doing really well at it.
<
p>If you want to create change, why not work on the people within the system, rather than the rules themselves? That’s the problem. It may be harder, but it’s more straightforward.
both the people and the system? The state of the legislature has always bothered me. In a state that has an educated and well informed citizenry, a state that is full of people that are committed to public service and believe in the positive role that government can and should play in the lives of people, we have a legislature full of political hacks. Why is this?
<
p>You can say, “Vote them out” but that doesn’t seem to work. My Senator and Rep are as scummy as any, but they get re-elected. Perhaps these positions don’t allow for committed honest individuals to make a positive difference in the lives of those they represent. That’s why you have to change the system. Therese Murray is another power hungry self-important megalomaniac. DeLeo seems like a nice enough guy, but you know he is playing the game. Let’s change both the system and then the people.
Doesn’t your analysis:
indicate you oppose that as well?
Short of disclosure, or public financing (its own can of worms, in my view), it is impossible to reform campaign finance. Money always finds a way in.
Chris is talking about the inner workings of the state Legislature…how the people elected dole out the power accorded to the body. Campaign finance reform deals with the process of electing the people, not the process of ranking them once elected.
<
p>Frankly, enshrining a particular set of rules in response to a particular situation in our state Constitution may not be the best idea — there should be some flexibility in how we run the government.
<
p>If these folks were serious about these ideas, they’d take it to the electoral level, not least of all because it’s an open question if 25% of the Lege would go along with this in the first place.
Everything you have proposed could be done without changing the constitution, you realize that.
<
p>The chambers could vote to use secret ballots, etc.
I thought I’d respond to a few of the comments.
<
p>Before I do, I tought I’d point out that in the past few days I’ve been asked (accused?)- by blog, phone and email – whether FixBeaconHill.com is a front for the Republican party, the Democratic party, the anti-gay marriage movement, and several other groups. The answer is unequivocally NO. FBH is not backed by, supported by, or fronting for anyone or any organization. That’s a blessing and a curse.
<
p>Blessing – straighforward unbaised goal and clear motivation. By the way, it’s perfectly fine for people to disagree with FBH. One of the primary goals is deliberation and debate.
<
p>Curse – no bankroll and no media machine.
<
p>It’s also important to note here that this proposed amendment is not a silver bullet. It won’t fix all that ails our political system. I won’t opine on term limits, RICO investigation, vote them all out, etc. – but this amendment doesn’t preclude any of that. So the quesiton is whether you wait and hope for one of the above to happen someday, or you lend a hand in something that will change the entrenched culture on Beacon Hill, today?
<
p>Deborah – “We” is a rethorical we, as in we the people. That said, I/we welcome (invite actually) more involvement from anyone who wants to offer their time, energy and effort. For the moment – it’s all about gathering signatures.
<
p>True – Rules can be written by the chamber to address these issues – but, rules are written, changed, and waived at will by the chamber itself. Rules changes have been pushed through in the past, but they have always been very short lived. Last point – if you read the rules in each chamber today, you’d ask what the problem is. They seem very democratic. But the written rules and the actual operation & culture are worlds apart.
<
p>Christopher – honestly we struggled with the distinction between constitutional clasues and internal rulemaking (in this case when I say WE I mean lengthy research and discussions with current and former legislators, public interest groups, constitutionl scholars, attorneys, etc.) The conclusion was that we should focus on structural changes that would change the entrenched culture. The belief is that when all legislators can act feeely without concern for retribution, the best set of rules and processes for establishing sound policy and good legislation will result.
<
p>As far as the Open Meeting Law, I don’t want to expand the law, I simply want it to apply to the Legislature as they wrote it for everyone else.
<
p>Jim & Sabutai – I belive that the system is fundamentally broken. As a result, some bad people are allowed to flourish. Despite what others say, there are some VERY good people in our legislature. Fix the system and some of the bad people will go away. As I wrote earlier, our proposed amendment is not a cure-all – but it is a very good start.
<
p>If I missed responding to anyone, please let me know.
<
p>Finally – PLEASE consider joining the effort to gather the required signatures by November 18th.
<
p>Thanks!
<
p>Chris McKeown
I have to tell you, I was excited when I read your proposal in the Globe, and immediately told a couple friends and family members about it. I think it’s a first rate idea, and I’m surprised that the Blue Mass Group community seems to be reacting so negatively against it. I really do think that a lot of the folks in the Legislature (certainly my rep and senator) are very honorable and well meaning people, and that the system which concentrates so much power in the hands of a few leaders is what’s wrong with it. I didn’t have many policy differences with Speaker DiMasi– but it bothered me how much power one man had, and it seems that that was too much power for him. So– let’s give your idea a shot!
The idea of secret ballots in the legislature is antithetical to what legislators are supposed to do. I want to know who my legislator votes for.
<
p>If the real problem is that there is insufficient partisan competition in the legislature to keep the majority party honest, then the answer is not a constitutional amendment, it’s a reinvigorated Republican Party. (Good luck with that, GOP!)
<
p>If the real problem is that legislators lack the spine to stand up to the leadership, then the answer is not a constitutional amendment, it’s voters who pay attention to what their legislators do and make their views known to them.
<
p>I think this project misdiagnoses the problem.
<
p>TedF
To me it comes down to what you value more – transperancy or objectivity. I was in my student Senate and we elected leadership by secret ballot. Some objected to this practice for the same reasons you do but I saw the benefits of avoiding the politics of personality. If nobody knows who voted for them for leadership they can’t favor or disfavor their colleagues on that basis. On balance I think that is better.
<
p>Um… no. You could, yourself, run for office and be the deliberative, representative democracy you want to see in the world.
<
p>As you rightly point out, we are a republic: that is to say a representative democracy. Your basic premise, such as it is, assumes that said representatives have gulled ‘we the people’ into voting for something opposite to what ‘we the people’ believe.
<
p>You have no support for this premise.
<
p>Nothing about a republic, nor a democracy in point of fact, demands adherence to a specific moral code. Or, put another way, nothing prevents a vote for a thoroughly venal and corrupt pol in the belief that a venal and corrupt pol is more effective. Nor, to be sure, can we be at all certain that people didn’t vote for Mitt Romney because space aliens from Regulus IV told them to… and we wouldn’t be able to take back their vote if they did. It might be a huge cosmic joke that we call the point around which choices converge the ‘mean’, but it is also democracy. Your efforts to get Beacon Hill to act in the manner most approving to you, however noble that might be, seems both doomed to fail and not entirely democratic in itself.
<
p>Nor do we elect representatives to simply surrogate our views: they are not proxies for the decisions we would make, if only we were able to be there to make them ourselves. If you want decisions made according to your lights, you should run for office and make those decisions in the way you deem most fitting. Based upon what I’ve read here, I’d vote for you.