I hope to clarify some inaccuracies and misconceptions in some postings regarding Senate Bill 321 and my involvement in the filing of this bill.
First, given the fact that Massachusetts has the right of free petition, it has always been my policy as State Senator to file ANY legislation upon the request of a constituent. I filed thirteen bills by request this session alone. Filing a bill on behalf of a constituent does not mean I support the content of the bill. In the case of S321 I do not.
It is also important to note that I did not solicit a single co-sponsor of this bill. All the co-sponsors contacted us directly to indicate they wished to add their name to this bill. While there was one clerical error in the filing of the bill that resulted in one name being listed erroneously, my office has documentation for every co-sponsor originally listed on the bill. We only added co-sponsors that directly contacted our office via email or phone call and our phone system allows us to see where the call originates from, so we know if it is coming from outside the building or inside the building. I would also point out that back in March the co-sponsors received emails from a group supporting this bill thanking them for their support. If they had an issue with their name being attached to the bill, they could have addressed them then.
What likely happened is that some co-sponsors simply did not read the bill completely before signing on as co-sponsors. Frankly, I know and understand that happens. With more than 5000 bills filed and constant requests to co-sponsor different bills before the deadline, often times legislators rely on bill summaries.
If someone doesn?t wish to be a co-sponsor, they are free to withdraw their name by simply writing to the clerk?s office. I have no issue with them removing their name. I do have an issue with them trying to use my office as an excuse for their original actions.
Again, there are certain legislators who have evidently told their constituents they didn’t know how their name was put on as a cosponsor when in fact we have an email record of their request.
Senator Bob Hedlund
Given the controversy that has erupted surrounding both the content and sponsorship of this bill, I was wondering if you or your office could shed a little more light on the matter.
<
p>
First, years ago when I had more involvement in the legislative process, I thought that when a Senator or Rep filed a bill at the request of a constituent, it would state on the bill that it was filed on behalf of the citizen by the legislator. This made it fairly clear that the Senator or Rep was not actually sponsoring the bill. Did you do this, or did you sponsor it under your name and not on behalf of someone.
<
p>
Secondly, given the scope of the bill, don’t you think the general public has a right to know what organization or individuals are behind this bill? Would you tell us who asked you to sponsor this bill?
<
p>
Lastly, it is disconcerting that legislators are pointing fingers at each other about who agreed to sponsor the bill, or read the bill or even supports the bill (heck, you?re the lead sponsor and you don’t even support the bill). Would you be willing to document–by releasing the emails, any written correspondence or phone messages– which legislators did agree to sponsor this bill?
<
p>
Thank you again Senator for addressing this issue with the BlueMass community.
You can find info on the bill here.
<
p>
All right, is there any legislation at all at which you’d draw the line? SB321 clearly bumped up against constitutional free speech issues, but that didn’t stop you from doing your legislative duty. So what other constitutional protections are subject to the vagaries of a citizen’s right of free petition? How about a bill to permit slavery? A bill to establish Christianity as the Official Religion of the Commonwealth?
<
p>
I find your largesse intellectually lazy and facile. If a citizen wishes to exercise his or her right of free petition, then let that individual convince a duly elected legislator that the merits of the legislation are sound. Short of that, you are acting as nothing but a disengaged middle man and wasting time that could have been spent on compelling issues that vex the Commonwealth. I’m pretty sure the citizens in your district elected you to be a little more discriminating in how you perform your duties. Perhaps if you did, there wouldn’t be “5000 bills filed” that are dead on arrival, and legislators would have time to actually read serious and viable legislative proposals.
I’m not sure your characterization of Sen. Hedlund’s approach as “intellectually lazy and facile” is particularly fair. After all, allowing a bill to enter the first stage of the process (getting forwarded to a committee) gives it a chance to recieve a public hearing, at which time the bill will be parsed and will receive more attention than at the bill-filing stage, which is a crazy time.
<
p>
There’s an argument to be made that since there are already 500 ways to kill a bill (probably more), allowing any constituent bill to enter the process (yes, even crazy slavery bills) is not harmful, especially if a poorly-drafted bill such as the subject of this post generates the type of positive discussion and action we’ve seen in the last couple weeks. (And marking the bill “By Request” is, in essence, one of the 500 ways to kill a bill).
<
p>
I’m not endorsing the idea that every citizen bill should be filed, but I hardly think it’s “intellectually lazy” to take that position.
…He should file the “by request” bill, and the clerk can refer it to the appropriate committee, which can consider the merits and act on it. The appropriate committee can choose to file it in the vertical file on first reading.
<
p>
Sen. Hedlund noted that he had only 13 or so “by request” bills, so it seems to me that your “by request” bills might lead to a deluge is a bit misplaced. The fact that most of them go nowhere itself is an impediment to people asking for the filing of “by request” bills.
I cannot believe Senator Hedlund would file a bill even with the “wink wink” it’s going nowhere status of “by request” if the bill were attempt say, reduce a woman’s rights in domestic violence cases, or allow a group of people to build a American Nazi party museum next to our holocaust Museum, due to number one, the political liability of this.
<
p>
Note the time and date of the Senator’s BMG post. I guess there is NOW a political liability…
Were it similarly as politically risky to file an anti-gay, anti-education bill as it would be to file an anti-victim’s rights bill or an anti-Semitic bill, I suspect we’d see a bit more discretion in Sen. Hedlund’s interpretation of his duties.
I tried to say the same thing a while ago – http://www.bluemassg… – but my explaination was met with some scepticism.
<
p>
LightIris – the tag line ‘by request’ is a universally recognized signal among the legislators that the sponsor is not in agreement with the bill. Generaly, if they ARE in agreement, they file the bill under their name, and name the requester as a co-sponsor (ordinary people as well as legislators can cosponsor legislation).
but I don’t buy it.
<
p>
Hedlund told KnowThyNeighbor last week he still had not read Bill S321. So how could he particiapate in “a universally recognized signal” if he did not know what the bill was all about?
<
p>
And secondly, Hedlund also received emails from MassResistance and was the “to be intended” for 5 other horrific bills. Camenker was asking the 25 co-sponsors of S321 to send their names into Hedlund for the other bills too.
Senator Hedlund, for what it is worth, I think most people who were following the discussion took Representative Donato’s protestations with a grain of salt.
<
p>
Many of us (especially in Medford) may have been disinclined to explicitly take him to task for three reasons: curiosity regarding what he would say next, gratitude that he was scrambling to disassociate himself from the bill, and pity for him after he had endured having his character and motives as well as the bill being dissected all weekend on the Medfordmass list.
<
p>
Having said that, a few people did confront him with the contradiction after his cryptic and misspelled Sunday evening BlackBerry missive regarding his support for the bill (to allow parents the option to let their children participate) was followed Monday morning by the denial that he had ever signed onto this bill as a cosponsor (passed along to the group through constituents who had spoken with him).
<
p>
This denial is contradicted by an e-mail update from Massresistance. As despicable as he is, Brian Camenker does possess a narrative integrity that Representative Donato lacks; therefore I am inclined to believe his version of events.
Steph you forgot the fourth reason. Some of us were hoping that the attacks on him from Massresistance would open his eyes to the truth. Hoping beyond hope that he would realize that if they could attack him so readily how his gay and lesbian constituents feel EVERY DAY. I for one was praying this would change his vote, or at least prevent him from voting. Alas he still chose the side of hate.
Personally, I didn’t really dare to hope that empathy could move Donato, given that hours spent listening to same sex couples describe their lives and experiences apparently failed to touch his heart. But I did think he might be capable of the realization that thoughtful, pro-equality people would be better friends to keep than the types he had been trying to please. Oh well, his loss.
First, I need to clarify that when I first read S321, and it took me about 1 1/2 minutes, I could not beleive what I was reading. The obvious intent of this bill was so nasty and anti-education, anti-gay, anti-child and anti-American, I thought that this was a joke. Then when I saw the 25 co-sponsors and Hedlund’s filing, I was beyond myself.
<
p>
On the week of June 8th and after many emails and phone calls being sent to his office by constituents, Senator Hedlund told me that he “still had not read the bill.” When I asked him jokingly to read it now, he said, “I am very busy, I don’t have time.” (interesting, Hedlund telephoned me). “when I told him that it was a very quick read, he said he was very busy thinking about how he was going to vote on the marriage amendment.” And we all know what happened there.
<
p>
So since March 08 to June Hedlund did not read a bill that he filed “by request” which was given that title because it is “code word for not going anywhere…” So he determined a bill filed by a constituent was bad enough to “go no where” but by his own admission, had not read it. Interesting…
<
p>
His office Chief of Staff told me that when all the 25 co-sponsors signed onto it, that Hedlund’s office discussed upping their status from “filer” to “co-sponsor” because of some of the substantial people who joined onto the bill. So, Hedlund’s staff was discussing upgrading Hedlund’s status on 321 “still without him having read it.”
<
p>
Subsequently, I learned from the House Minority Leader’s (Rep Brad Jones) chief of staff that the drafters of the bill asked Brad jones to file it, instead of Hedlund. Jones refused because I guess, “he read it” and his staffer told me that it was because 1) the bill was really really bad and 2) because it came from MassResistance and the political hit from being associated with Camenker was not what Jones wanted to do.
<
p>
Not only did Hedlund “file” the bill but his staff (or his office) essentially “managed” it. I have an email that his Chief of Staff sent me which was sent by Camenker and Contrada back in March thanking the co-sponsors for sponsoring and asking them to sponsor other horrific bills on MassRessistance’s behalf.
<
p>
Amy Contrada’s email which Hedlund received regarding The Parents Rights Bill dated March 13th:
<
p> Dear Senators and Representatives co-sponsoring the Parents? Rights Bill:
<
p>
Thank you so much for stepping forward on this crucial bill. We have filed 5 other important bills still needing co-sponsors. You can read the text of each bill by clicking on their titles below. Please call us if you have further questions.
<
p>
We hope you will notify Senator Hedlund?s office by this Friday, Mar. 16, that you will co-sponsor these bills. (Final deadline is Mon, Mar. 19.)
<
p>
First, I need to clarify something…Back in March in the email that Brian Camenker sent to Reps and Senators thanking them for their sponsorship, Hedlund was included in the email list.
<
p>
Secondly, Brian Camenker listed Hedlund as one of the sponsors of this bill on the MassResistance website before KnowThyNeighbor sent out its email alerts to action.
<
p>
So the point of my comment here is that while we acknowledge that Senator Hedlund is only “the filer of S321, everyone can see why we thought that. And I wonder if the Senator contacted Brian Camenker and asked him to change his status regarding S321?