Deval Patrick, at least as much as Mitt Romney, is an outsider to Beacon Hill. The legislators there have 16 years of practice in the art of governing without the executive. The culture of ignoring and marginizing the executive — something I welcomed during the Romney Administration — will not be easy to change. Patrick will have to do serious work to change it, and he will have to give legislators incentives to meet him halfway.
Without action, things could get ugly quickly. While meetings with the Speaker and Senate President have occurred, many more need to take place. More importantly, Patrick needs to meet with all legislators 1 on 1, or in small groups. Individual meetings with the key committee chairs are also in order. Regular, recurring meetings should become routine. Sometimes the agenda should be substantive, other times, relationship-building should be paramount.
Fans of the netroots may ask, “Why shouldn’t Patrick just use his grassroots army to push the legislators on his initiatives?” It is a good question. Clearly, Patrick’s grassroots machine is a valuable tool. But he can not pull that trigger on every issue — in fact, it is a tool he can use only rarely. Too much use will exhaust the volunteers and create bitter rancor between the governor and the legislature.
Relationship-building with the legislature, on the other hand, can only help Patrick. There are a million ways to kill a good idea on Beacon Hill, and only one procedure for passing a law. The rank and file determine the culture. They are well-organized into commanding veto-proof majorities. These could dominate Patrick’s budget and initiatives just as well as they did Romney’s. Meetings, more importantly, are only that — both parties always remain free to act as their conscience dictates.
More importantly, the legislators have a lot of great ideas of their own. Many of them have been working in government for years. They deeply care about our state. It’s time for Patrick to engage them.
is where the “rank and file” legislators are on this. My theory all along has been that with a Dem in the corner office, the loyalty of the overwhelmingly Dem legislature no longer automatically runs to the legislative leadership, which is where the opening lies to create some change, and why there was never any hope of change if Healey won. On the other hand, leadership won’t be psyched about DP doing an end-run around them and engaging rank-and-file legislators directly. Yet that’s the opportunity. The question is how to take advantage of it without going nuclear too early. A delicate balance, no?
…while a Governor can take something OUT, he can’t put anything in. However, without the consent of leadership, nothing can EVER get in.
The budget process is an interesting ritual dance. Forthose new to it, I recomment the book Lobbying on a Shoestring by Judith Meredith (the 2000 edition). But a Governor can file legislation, and file Supplemental budgets. And the question is how many “back bench” legislators with stalled agendas, met with one on one, would have interesting priorities. The “strong man” model where it takes the kind of campaign Meredith describes, if anything, unless you “win the opinion” of the Speaker or Senate President is really NOT very democratic. The fact that the “one district” items like a road repair, or a skating rink renovation are hostage to the leaderships agenda is a difficult reality, too. Thes items are not “pork” but the result of the way the legislature micromanages. Again, as I have mentioned before, Massachusetts is the ONLY state with a separate line item for each court house.
It just can’t advance without House action.
<
p>
Case in point – one year in the early Zero’s, the Senate was furious that various spending items had not been funded, and it filed a supplemental budget, to the huzzahs of all the constituencies affected. Mistah Speakah had strong feelings that ALL spending bills originate in the House, and it was left to die a slow and withering death on the House floor, looking up occationally, and gasping text from an SEIU robo-call, then laying its sad vellum head down upon the carpet again. Romney filed MANY supps that were never acted on, as a sort of fiscal press release.
<
p>
And while DiMasi may be a little more in tune with Patrick, the budget bill the new Occupant files goes NOWHERE without Senate concurance and approval as well. Back and forth, three times, with opportunities to pack and cut on each journey.
<
p>
So I honestly think my point stands – while a Governor can take OUT, only Lege leadership can put IN. AND take out TOO!
that their loyalty will always be with the person that “butter’s their bread”. The person that can get them on prime commitees, that can get control what gets voted on etc…
<
p>
I don’t think it’s practical to do and end-run around the leadership. There are two options; work with leadership or work on replacing the leadership.
<
p>
I would try to work with the leadership.
That is, work with the leadership, but make as many friends and allies in the legislature as possible at the same time. This would mean doing as Murray has done, and bringing savvy and experienced legislators into the team, I would think. It also involves more listening than talking.
but I think there is a difference between what you said and David’s end-around approach.
because the more directly DP engages the rank and file, the more likely it is to be perceived by leadership as an end-run, and that’s what will make them mad. It’s Deval’s move, and it’s a tricky one.
Well, one thing Romney did NOT do is make appointments with folk who asked for appointments. The absolute minimum that should occur is that if a legislator or activist asks for an appointment, one is made with Deval (if a legislator) and if it is an “activist” they get a prompt response to their letter/call/e-mail and an appointment with someone, not just ignored and blown off.
<
p>
Also, not “making friends” because of fear, doubt, and anxiety is NOT the way to change the culture of Beacon Hill which is based on “fear, doubt and anxiety ” being used to stifle initiative and innovation, and keep the so-called rank and file in line.
<
p>
As a practical matter, though, anyone can make more money than what legislators are paid – and every legislator I have spoken with, and I have spoken with a majority of the legislators as a result of my own quest that started in July of 2003 [but that is for another day, and if someone would LIKE to hear about it] – every legislator ran for election because that legislator cares passionately about one or more issues. For example, for Representative Marzilli, his “core concerns” are environmental. No one can care equally about all issues; it is just not humanly possible.
<
p>
For the record, and in the interests of disclosure, my “core issue” is social justice as manifested by access to justice – I am not unmoved by environmental issues but just not passionate about them.
<
p>
Giving each legislator a chance to “share their passion” and advocate for the issues that caused them to run and serve the Commonwealth is an extention of the “grassroots” ideology in my opinion.
Well, one thing Romney did NOT do is make appointments with folk who asked for appointments. Believe me I know!
<
p>
The absolute minimum that should occur is that if a legislator or activist asks for an appointment, one is made with Deval (if a legislator) and if it is an “activist” they get a prompt response to their letter/call/e-mail and an appointment with someone, not just ignored and blown off.
<
p>
Also, not “making friends” because of fear, doubt, and anxiety is NOT the way to change the culture of Beacon Hill which is based on “fear, doubt and anxiety ” being used to stifle initiative and innovation, and keep the so-called rank and file in line.
<
p>
As a practical matter, though, anyone can make more money than what legislators are paid – and every legislator I have spoken with, and I have spoken with a majority of the legislators as a result of my own quest that started in July of 2003 [but that is for another day, and if someone would LIKE to hear about it] – every legislator ran for election because that legislator cares passionately about one or more issues. For example, for Representative Marzilli, his “core concerns” are environmental. No one can care equally about all issues; it is just not humanly possible.
<
p>
For the record, and in the interests of disclosure, my “core issue” is social justice as manifested by access to justice – I am not unmoved by environmental issues but just not passionate about them.
<
p>
Giving each legislator a chance to “share their passion” and advocate for the issues that caused them to run and serve the Commonwealth is an extention of the “grassroots” ideology in my opinion.
Traveliginini’s (however you spell it) words as more posturing and trying to show who’s boss. Could it have been his “Al Haig” moment? (Remember when Reagan was shot?)
<
p>
If Deval continues to appeal to the grass roots, the legislature will have no choice but to answer to the people.
<
p>
Deval knows this and Travelwhat’s-his-name knows it too. When reps and senators start getting dozens of calls from voters in their district, who will they respond to? Robert T or the people who put them in office?
<
p>
Mark
but his name is all over the front page postings currently, as well as the front page of the Globe: Travaglini.
I didn’t feel he deserved my respect enough to spell his name correctly. My mispelling were intentional.
Sorry, missed the snark. Hopefully there aren’t too many needs to misspell in the new year.
has since Patrick’s victory, er, mandate. Patrick has been reaching out to the legislators in various forms and has a terrific and very competent liaison in Suzanne Bump making sure things are in place for a productive relationship. Trav knew what he was saying and he knew it would get some attention but my guess is he didn’t realize that it would get this much attention. He thought everyone would be following Diasuke to the bathroom and pretty much ignore what he said except for the insiders. Trav is, right now, getting a lesson in what a voter mandate really means and he’ll be more measured in the future.
Trav has been under pressure from his members to challenge Patrick a bit more on what many Senators believe is their place as the first and only policy-making body in government. Moore, Morrissey and others have had their panties in a bunch for a few weeks and yesterday Trav tried to speak to that. It failed, miserably.
<
p>
The other important element of this is while Trav and the Senate are whining about being excluded from Deval’s transition teams (not true), the inauguration, and the plans to look at earmarks as what they are (oink), DiMasi has been working on policy, making headway that involves both sides of the aisle and getting good reviews. At least someone is preparing to govern with the new Governor. This of course will set off a battle between the two chambers that will require Deval to babysit.
<
p>
Is this what we can expect from our Great and General Court?
Even if he has a mandate, which is at least subject to debate given the awfulness of the opposing campaign, why would they care? They just got re-elected too, and probably by a higher, or at least equal margin that DP got. And the liklihood that the Deval Patrick phenomenon fizzles before the next election is far greater than the liklihood that any significant number of “establishment” legistaltors have opposition, never mind successful opposition, next election cycle.
Every time I underestimate the enormity of the push for change both in the state and at the national level, I am completely wrong.
You think Trav doesn’t “give a flying fig about DP’s ‘mandate'”? Guess what? He’s walking the plank today and he ain’t doing it because DP squeaked by a couple of loser opponents.
<
p>
The comment about the “mandate” of the unchallenged legislators begs little comment. One ran to be the senator from the Blackstone Valley and one ran to be governor of the Commonwealth. They both received well above the 50% except the governor had three opponents and the senator had none. One leads 6 million people and one leads 170,000. Yeah, you’re right.
<
p>
You and a small (and getting smaller) minority continue to believe that there was no mandate on November 7th, and people are not clamoring for a change. If that was the case why is the media so breathless about Deval providing an entree to the big money donors and the fact that he’s talking to people who have been in government before. They are trying to call his bluff and, so far, he isn’t showing his cards. You want to pour cold water on this parade. Being a cynic, I have similar urges. But this might be different. So far, as much as everyone has tried to drown out the enthusiasm, the Hope Train has continued to rumble forward. And with or without Trav and the Senate, or you and the those in the middle-of-the-road-with-the-yellow-lines-and-the-dead-skunks, this is going forward.
<
p>
If it fails and he’s a flash in the pan and 4 years from now you can wag your finger in my face … so what. Maybe it says more about you than him.
<
p>
You have that catchy little saying about diapers and politicians with your signature but it’s remarkably inaccurate in assessing your own judgments. Maybe you should try “same as it ever was” instead.
That the legislators have to be engaged as soon as possible is totally right. We are nearing the filing deadline for legislation for the reps and senators and the Administration ought to get a feel for what ideas are coming forward from the members, either on a regional basis, an issue basis or both.
<
p>
It’s also not as if there weren’t legislators early and vocal for DP. As I remember, their endorsements were prominent on the website. A little of the same respect will pay rewards all around.