Surprise surprise. By lopsided margins, the legislature voted to reject two proposed rules that would increase the public’s access to information about what goes on on Beacon Hill, and would make it easier for regular folks to participate in the democratic process. From the Somerville Journal (HT: .08):
POST COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS ON WEBSITE (H 3746) House 20-127, rejected a new rule requiring that committee votes cast by legislators on bills heard by their committees be posted on the Legislature’s website. Current rules require committee votes to be kept in the offices of the committee and be available for public inspection upon reasonable notice and during regular office hours. Supporters of the new rule said this would simply give people quick and easy access to the committee votes of their legislators. They noted that under current rules, a person has to drive to Boston during regular business hours in order to obtain this information. Opponents of the new rule said that the current system has worked well for years and should not be changed. (A “Yes” vote is for the new rule requiring that committee votes be posted on the Legislature’s website. A “No” vote is against the requirement)….
LEGISLATORS’ TESTIMONY (H 3746) House 19-128, rejected a new rule taking away some of the preferential treatment that legislators receive at committee hearings. The new rule would designate a 30-minute period during which legislators are allowed to testify on legislation. Legislators who want to testify before or after that period would be treated by the committee chair the same way that other people who testify are treated. Supporters of the new rule said that currently legislators are often allowed to testify shortly after they arrive at a hearing – ahead of citizens who have taken the day off from work to testify and have been waiting for hours. Opponents of the new rule said that committee chairs should have the power to adapt to individual circumstances and not have their hands tied. They noted that legislators are often going from hearing to hearing to testify on several bills and cannot wait for hours at each hearing. (A “Yes” vote is for the new rule designating a 30-minute period during which legislators are allowed to testify on legislation. A “No” vote is against the new rule).
I particularly love the stated justification for rejecting the first proposed change, which is no doubt the real motivation behind rejecting both changes — that the current system “has worked well for years and should not be changed.” It’s so, so typical of the mindset up on Beacon Hill: “hey, it works for me, so why would I change it?” Blech.
I haven’t seen roll calls for these votes — anybody got them? [UPDATE: yes — see the comments.]
…who voted FOR the internet posting, but against the preferential treatment? It looks like one vote changed between the tow.
<
p>
(Unless somebody just went to lunch, and somebody else came in…)
My reading of the roll call is that all the Repubs voted yes on both and then Hynes joined them on the Internet posting. Right?
I went to an education hearing last year. There were a few hundred black parents, mostly black and Hispanic moms, in the gallery, with a few hoping to testify.
<
p>
Streams of Reps and Senators came in, though, taking their “automatic” slots. The day went by, hour after hour….many parents kind of squirming, bumped, not sure what to do (there was no way to predict how many electeds would come in), and finally leaving to pick up their kids from school. Most just wanted to hear a single parent speak so they could feel, collectively, “heard.”
<
p>
To their credit, chairs Antonioni and Haddad were sensitive to the situation, promised that they’d stay as long as it took. And they lived up to their promise. You could tell they wanted to actually hear testimony, not just canned remarks of electeds.
<
p>
When a parent finally got the mic — maybe 4 or 5 hours into the hearing? — the crowd roared in appreciation.
<
p>
Question: can electeds just drop off prepared remarks and have them inserted into the record, instead of needing to bump citizens?
when was the last time a state rep made the papers for a comment during a typical lege hearing?
would find their constituents waiting to testify and chaparrone them to the mic. just my little peon opinion.
It was the hearing on H4321 [really was the number] that sought to provide the first change to the rate for court appointed attorneys. Rep. Edward Connelly, since deseased, rose to take the mike, ahead of everyone, and then with a grin, yeilded the floor to a court appointed attorney! I miss Rep. Connolly.
Looks like Bob Katzen does the roll call for each local rep. for the Town Online newspapers. I asked for the entire roll. I’ll post if I get it.
<
p>
But, methinks the 20 or 19 is from the PP side of the aisle.
Which speaks to the general problem we face, don’t you think?
roll call pdf file
Hynes was the only Dem to support either of these efforts (which the Speaker obvioulsy “encouraged” all Dems to vote against)? Anyone know why? Does he have history of ignoring the leadership.
…but a history of being fair minded and a hard worker.
<
p>
I agree with Laurel about the Legislator Escort thing – it’s done often if the legislator notices them – even if it does come off like cutting into line.
<
p>
The rationale for the in/out is a legislator might wish to tesify, but also has his/her own committee hearing being held in B-2, so runs to A-1, testifies and takes off back to the other. Also, if there are Formals, EVERYBODY may be running in and out (which is why those underpaid Chiefs of Staff are so important, as THEY are the only ones who are sure to stay for the whole thing!). No question it is abused, but that may be why Rep. Hynes voted against changing the right to have cuts, while voting to post votes online.
<
p>
His heart is in the right place.
Looks like the GOoPers were unanimously in favor of these changes, and the Dems were unanimously (with one exception — Hynes voted for the website disclosure) against.
<
p>
That’s really horrifying.
I mean the rule proposing posting the roll call votes on the website. I am assuming it was one of the same 20 who voted for it. It is when stuff like this happens that I wonder why I am a member of the Democratic Party here in Massachusetts. What are these people afraid of, and if they are afraid, doesn’t that say something about who we have as our legislators?
<
p>
As for rejection of the second proposed rule, I am just speechless by the arrogance.
I was especially bothered by the attitude that it was OK to make people drive into Boston to research committee votes. and was vaguely troubled that I’d seen this attitude before. This morning I remembered where I’d heard it….
<
p>
<
p>
Its sad when our legislature takes its cues from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
This is exactly what I thought of when I blogged about this last week. I was wondering if they keep the records in a disused lavetory with a sign that says “beware of the leopard.”
<
p>
The Dem leadership was obviously against this and legislators did not think it was important enough to buck them.
One “Commission” I was following and attending whenever I could [and trying to arrange coverage when I could not] only posted its “open meetings” initially on the fourth floor of the State House, on the wall across from a men’s lavoratory. No, I am not kidding.
This is outrageous. I’m contacting my State Rep, are you?
It is a little ironic that the Massachusetts legislature voted against an open government provision two weeks before the start of Sunshine Week. Sunshine Week is an annual national event that focuses on the importance of open government and freedom of information. Guess we will not be seeing the Massachusetts legislature listed on the project’s “Bright Ideas for Sunshine Week” list. (Scroll down the page.)
Remember, “gavel to gavel” television coverage was allowed to die. No more televised State House coverage.
<
p>
I do not see a legion of citizens with digital video recorders – but that is about what it would take. I think, too, that recorders would be excluded by some committees. A friend had that experience.
<
p>
SUNSHINE is going to take a herd of frogs hopping all over, I think.
Has anyone who has posted in this section actually read the rules of the MA Legislature? Being a little nerdy, I have and they are quite thorough and actually all.ow for a very open process.
<
p>
If one goes on the legislative home page – you can access The Rules of the House and Senate as well as their Calendars and Journals (which have links to roll calls) and it seems that the clerks are also posting notice of executive hearings there as well.
<
p>
So, I find it quite amusing that so many of my fellow Dems in this section are siding with the Republican Leader Brad Jones in this matter but have found him appalling in other sections when he criticizes the Governor.
<
p>
During the debate on rules which I actually had a chance to see while I was in work (due only to the House webcasting) It looked like mostly all of the republican amendments were rejected and to me that’s a good thing…I would imagine DiMasi and Travaglini don’t need the Republican minority blocking the Governor’s priorities through rules changes that would have assisted them in doing just that….
<
p>
Do you think that the Gov’s tax loophole bill will be given a fair shake by Brad and his little gang of GOPr’s?
<
p>
I recall people on this site marveling how wonderful Barney Frank was when he presided in the Congress during the debate over minimum wage (there was an actually a link from You Tube) We all applauded when Barney Frank cut off the Republicans, we thought it was great that there was a rule attached to the bill that allowed no amendments to a bill on the floor and limited debate. A little hypocritical, don’t you think?
<
p>
Let’s not gang up on our own?Remember the Legislature is Democratic. It was OUR Democratic Legislators who have approved increases in the minimum wage, landmark health care reform, stem cell research, emergency contraception and defeated the death penalty.
<
p>
Should we give Brad Jones the tools necessary to block these achievements? I don’t think so.
<
p>
The process is very open…one just has to take a proactive approach to know what happens up on Beacon Hill.
which the people who call themselves Democrats should be for. Apparently they are not. As for the Massachusetts legislature’s website… it is really an embarrassment when you compare it to legislative websites in other states. Take a look at the one for Virginia.
<
p>
The process in the Massachusetts legislature is actually not very open. It should be Democrats who are proposing to make it more open; they are not. They do not get a pass on this one because they voted for things all Democrats should support. Oh, as for the death penalty, it was defeated by one vote… cast by then Rep. John Slattery, so I do not think the Democrats in the legislature at the time can take credit for that one.
<
p>
By the way, how can Brad Jones possibly block anything that the Democrats are doing in the legislature by making the process more open? I really would like to know the answer. I think it is more likely that the Governor’s proposals will be blocked by Democrats who do not want the grassroots to know who they are.