Is it just me or does someone else finally see the reason why Senate President Robert Travaglini chose to advance one Constitutional Convention ballot question and adjourn before fulfilling his Constitutional duty and voting on another one?
I am speaking about the ballot questions brought forth concerning Marriage Equality and Health Care.
On January 2, 2007, Senate President Robert Travaglini insisted the legislature vote to put a question on the 2008 ballot that, whether one agrees religiously with marriage equality or not, could take away rights of a minority population in the Commonwealth. He said that the SJC had stated that there needs to be a vote on the issues as it is the legislature’s duty to vote petitions brought forth by the people.
That same day, during the same Constitutional Convention, another ballot question was to be voted on that dealt with the Health Care Industry. Senate President Travaglini decided that the same litnus test that was applied to the Anti-marriage petition that forced his hand in calling for an up or down vote, does not apply to Health Care issues and he called for an adjournment of the Convention before a vote could be voted on for this issue.
On January 18, 2007, the Globe ran an article that stated “The political intrigue began brewing last week following the Massachusetts Hospital Association’s decision to fire its $500,000-a-year president and the forced resignation of the legally wounded former House speaker, Thomas M. Finneran, as the highly compensated president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. Much of the focus is on Travaglini, who was sworn in Jan. 3 to his third two-year term as the Senate leader. Both jobs involve highly complex industries and require the political skills to work the hallways of Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill to promote and protect the interests of their members. Both political and healthcare sources said yesterday that Travaglini would be a heavy favorite to replace Ronald M. Hollander at the hospital association.”
The article went on to speculate: “Of course there is a lot of talk, and it has piqued his interest,” said another source close to the Senate president. “Why wouldn’t he look at his options. He has to look at his future. . . . He’s not going to let anything go by without taking a hard look.” and “Those close to the East Boston Democrat say Travaglini, a cancer survivor who also underwent serious heart surgery in 2001 at age 48, is keenly aware that he needs to make more than his $90,000 salary as Senate president to provide for his family and pay the hefty college tuition bills he will soon face for his three children.”
To me, it all came together. Prior to this, I thought he was just kissing up to the former (Stepford) Governor.
It’s amazing, and sad, to see how much money and effort go into avoiding the obvious and proven benefits of single-payer universal health insurance.
<
p>
Sigh.
…Trav included?
maybe others haven’t, yet, because we’re too busy feeling thoroughly disgusted and demoralized about the fact that 101 (not 75) “LAWMAKERS” chose to break the law on Jan. 2 instead of vote on the Health Care Amendment, as required by law.
<
p>
blumassm, your post is 100% on target in putting together the pieces to expose the disingenuous dynamics afoot here. it’s pathetic. and sinister, knowing of the suffering and financial waste perpetuated by these actions. glad you’re calling attention to it, as did this Op-Ed in the MetroWest Newspaper and a Watertown paper (so I heard). not a peep from the Glob.
At the risk of exposing my naivete… how does one start an impeachment process in MA – does it have to come from the Legislature, or can We The People do it directly?
<
p>
Choosing to disobey a law that was clearly interpreted by the SJC is a pretty bad thing. The possible motivations for breaking the law just add to the stink.
after perusing this.
Looks like it’s the Legislature that would have to oust itself.
<
p>
I did find this interesting ditty towards the top: “It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.”
<
p>
Looks like male atheists and agnostics may have a problem in the Commonwealth.
The House impeaches the Senate, and the Senate impeaches the House. Hmm…
<
p>
Doesn’t say HOW MANY or anything. Three? Ten? Percentage? Point is, I be there are members in BOTH bodies willing to introduce against the OTHER body, where they might not against their brethern.
<
p>
David – other than the Constitution per se, HAS there been an impeachment? What is the procedure?
<
p>
If there HASN’T been in 300 years – whyever not?
In re Opinion of Justices, 308 Mass. 619
<
p>
<
p>
Simply, if a majority voted for a bill to remain in committee, how likely it is that a majority would impeach the majority that so voted?
You see how that works, right? The House doesn’t impeach the Senate, nor visa-vesa, The House passes articles of impeachment against a particular officer(s), whether he or she be a Representative, a Senator, Judge, ect…and the House votes.
<
p>
Only those articles that pass, subject the impeached officer to trial in the Senate. That’s my read of the blockquoted text.
how utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt Beacon Hill Democrats are. Trav’s a Dem, right?
Click this link for pdf of the Jan. 2 ConCon Roll Call votes on the HC Amendment that show the following tally:
Senate: Yea=17 Nay=21
House: Yea=75 Nay=80
Totals: Yea=92 Nay=101
<
p>
It needed 147 (2/3 of all present) to vote Yea, to bring HCA forward for its up or down vote as required by the Constitution and clarified by the State Supreme Court. Nay votes were to deny the HCA a vote on its merits
<
p>
As you can see in the Senate document, the Nay number climbed as more “Good Girl” and “Good Boy” votes were “persuaded” by Trav and the “leadership teams”. This tactic was observed by David Kravitz of BMG and further exposed by The MetroWest Op-Ed Jan. 4
“Hypocsrisy on Beacon Hill”“…after [Senator]Spilka cast her vote against bringing up the amendment, Travaglini’s voice was picked up by an open mic saying, “Good girl.”
<
p>
If you have questions and/or concerns about this, you might want to call the State House 617-722-2000 and leave messages for Trav and DiMasi, and your own leges too. I’m still waiting to hear back from my own Rep. Sanchez and Sen. Wilkerson…
Isn’t the much, much simpler explanation that Travaglini is opposed to gay marriage and in fact voted to place the amendment on the ballot?
…may have some validity when applied to natural phenomena, but in politics, with all things being equal, the simplest explanation is too often not the correct one. Its application is not self evidently reliable.
<
p>
I hadn’t heard about this other angle on the Gay Marriage vote until a colleague emailed this to me today:
<
p>
“They primarily voted on the Gay marriage ban bill so they could get their raises that Romney was holding over their heads. As soon as they took the vote which promoted the [amendment] bill he wanted, Romney went and signed their pay raise, as his last official act.”
I find it hard to believe that legislators made such a historic vote for a few thousand dollars.
<
p>
If they were interested in money for legislation, they could do far better for themselves on obscure regulation.
I’m not even sure why the Globe, et al hasn’t run some story explaing why the vote wasn’t taken. Yes, and I know it was their duty to vote….But, even I know why the vote wasn’t taken, and I’m about as plugged in as a manual typewriter, and it wasn’t for some plum lobbyist job….
<
p>
1: The Amendment was dead after Chapter 58.
2: The General Court saw no risk because everyone knew the Amendment was dead.
3: No one cared enough to make a stand for duty to the Constitution.
to refute your idiotic points:
<
p>
1. No, it wasn’t “dead”. That’s stupid to say. Yes, the sloppy/lazy/inaccurate media coverage of Chapter 58 led much of the public to mistakenly believe that the state’s health care problems had been fixed. That does not equal a citizen initiative being dead. (you moron)
<
p>
2. The GC saw little risk b/c the public had been mislead (see #1 above) and was adequately confused and not paying attention to the HC Amendment which by no coincidence received practically no mainstream media coverage despite its very real existence. The GC saw little risk because the corporate power brokers who really run this state wanted the HC amendment to be ignored and then to be killed by any means necessary.
<
p>
3. A number of lawmakers made a stand for duty to the Constitution by pressing for the required up or down vote on the HC Amendment at the Jan. 2 Con Con; read the transcript. A number of citizens have filed a lawsuit to the State Supreme Court because they care enough to make a stand for duty to the Constitution.
<
p>
To clarify, I’ve already made a decision not to waste my time with you, gary, but I do have a responsibility to other readers not to leave them with your idiotic thinking on this issue. I am saying this as respectfully as possible under the circumstances.
Very classy.
<
p>
read the above comment again. it was what someone else pointed out about LEGISLATORS’ PAY RAISES. of course there is not one single answer or explanation to any of this and i certainly am not saying there is. in fact, almost nothing is ever that straightforward or simple, is it?
<
p>
but there most certainly are pieces that can be known, discovered, uncovered, etc, and then put together to create a fuller and more complete picture of what’s going on and why. you’re still left with what to do about it, though.
Clearly Bobby T. doesn’t like gay people. He himself authored one of the first anti-gay marriage amendments. And if he wanted to endear himself with the health care industry, then using his position to lobby for them was advantageous to him. I guess the only silver lining in all this is that if they give him a better job elsewhere in the private sector as a result of his perfidy, then we’ll be rid of him in government, and can move on to the next con-con with a senate president who is more than likely going to be sympathetic with equal marriage rights. We can only hope.