So, the Globe’s Frank Phillips reports that Gov. Patrick is thinking of trading legislative pay for control of rogue state agencies like Massport and the ‘Pike. Mark Bail has held forth already, as has Dan Dunn. I’ll add some observations:
The article clearly implies that Patrick is planning to bribe state legislators with pay raises to get what he wants. If that’s the case, that’s a bad way to negotiate — as Keller says, “the governor is hopelessly naïve if he thinks this is the way to govern.”
… And that’s if it’s actually true.
I hate to get all ad-hominem, but this is the same Frank Phillips of Killer Coke fame — in other words, someone who has a history of putting Patrick in the worst possible light on the flimsiest of evidence. And indeed, look at how qualified his language is here — is there really a smoking gun anywhere? (My emphasis here.)
No agreement has been struck, but in behind-the-scenes conversations, sources said, Patrick has signaled that he may be willing to take the inevitable public criticism about the pay raises, but he wants significant payback: broad cooperation on his proposals to overhaul the state’s quasi-public authorities and boards.
OK, keep your scorecards handy: No agreement yet … still in negotiation … anonymous “sources.”
Is there a there, there, yet? Let’s ask someone who’s “aware of the deal”:
“That’s a quid pro quo?” asked one lawmaker who is aware of the proposed deal.
You asking me? Hey legislator X, aren’t you the one who’s supposed to know something about this? Guess not.
And let’s watch the talking points spin off like mud off of a tire:
Patrick, on the other hand, is facing the potential political consequences of granting a legislative pay hike, an issue that often creates a public furor and can politically damage a governor — especially at a time when the state is facing a budget deficit of more than $1 billion.
Is that a threat? And if he saves us $80,000 that’ll be a big gesture, right? Just sayin’.
The negotiations provide a glimpse into the evolving relationship between legislative leaders and the new Democratic governor. One consequence that Patrick’s advisers must consider is whether such a deal would fan public fears that one-party rule on Beacon Hill — after 16 years of Republican leadership in the corner office — could lead to uncontrolled spending.
The “public fears” were so pervasive that the fretful electorate gave Patrick a razor-thin 21-point victory in November — all while returning the usual gang of Dems to the customary supermajority status. Hrmmm …
For now, Patrick and legislative leaders are at an impasse.
… “There are absolutely no plans to increase stipends for chairmen,” said Kimberly Haberlin, DiMasi’s spokeswoman.
Wow, sounds like this thing is really barrelling forward. Can’t stop it now.
Where’s the beef, Frank?
… on why this would be such a terrible idea if it is true. I personally don’t care very much about how much legislators are paid, assuming that the numbers aren’t absurd. I care a lot about how those state agencies are managed.
There’s a lot more than $80k at stake in those agencies. And indeed, in negotiation, sometimes you want to throw as many variables into the stew as possible, so that you can create something that works for everyone. I think as a one-for-one swap it would look like a crude bribe — but Phillips has a long way to go before proving that. As written, it’s innuendo-plus-spin.
It’s the principle that is so appalling. I am not saying it is true or not, I haven’t researched it enough myself. But hypothetically, the idea of paying off or bribing public officials with OUR MONEY to get them to agree to a position is lunacy.
<
p>
Someone else suggested this on the other tread on the topic, what’s next? Outright paying for votes? You can get $500 for a yes vote on this bill?
It would an Adam Reilly column in the Phoenix, then we could believe it with abandon.
Adam does better reporting.
<
p>
In any event, what’s your take?
First of all, my point is that with one exception anything Adam Reilly has written was been embraced by folks ’round here. I think bad reporters have good days, and good reporters bad ones, and we can’t get too carried away examining
<
p>
I don’t think even Tom Delay would be stupid enough to say “I’ll raise your pay if you vote my way”. Nobody who gets to this stage would be that transparent, a corporate lawyer no less.
<
p>
But the fact that Deval is offering big pay hikes just when he’s trying to push through a new agenda and is seeking to establish political capital on Beacon Hill looks horrible at the very least. Why not wait 6 months when the budget is done, and do it during the summer? This is either a quid pro quo, or disastrous judgment.
I agree with Charley that there are a number of questions left unanswered in this article that need to be clarified before everyone starts going off on the administration for supposed “bribery”.
<
p>
First off, the way I would see the “deal” going down (to the extent that there is any “deal”) is that Patrick would agree to sign the pay raises into law and not veto them, thus (in effect) taking the brunt of the blame for them. But what I don’t understand is how this would be “bribery”. After all, couldn’t the legislature simply override the veto anyway? It seems to me that Patrick is saying: Either you go along with my agency plans, in which case I’ll sign your perks law and take the heat, or else I’ll veto the bill and use my bully pulpit to make the lege look bad for squandering the public’s money.
<
p>
Any what’s wrong with this? How is this “bribery” exactly? I don’t see it.
<
p>
I will say that Charely may be misreading the legislator’s comment of “that’s a quid pro quo?” My interpretation of the article is not that the legislator is unaware of this, but rather than s/he doesn’t think this is a particularly convincing or “fair” trade. After all, the lege very well may be able to override the veto anyway, so why should they give much ground at all?
<
p>
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the matter, and if my interpretation of events is correct I see 1) no reason why this is objectionable and 2) how it in any form represents “bribery”.
There’s a clear difference between bribing someone and Quid pro quo. Legislative horse trading happens all the time and is a wholly neccessary part of the republicanism to which we all ascribe.
<
p>
The emolument of public officials being a distraction here: if we were sane in our politics there would be a mechanism to pay public servants appropriately and we’d not have to have their pay as an issue. However, removing that from the equation for the nonce, let us imagine that, instead of compensation for legislators, the Hon. Deval Patrick instead traded something far more innocuous, say an agreement not to veto a tax on manure production for farms in exchange for increased funding for solar power initiatives…. the kind of horse trading that occurs all the time between the legislative and executive branch… what is the objection?
<
p>
So separating the compensation issue from the quid pro quo of daily politics, we see the issue isn’t the Hon Deval Patricks willingness to ‘sell out’, but rather the inclusion of lawmakers salaries in the sausage. What formula is used to
decide what lawmakers get and how?
<
p>