Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

On the Way to Rebuilding the Public’s Confidence in the Legislature?.

By

It is so good to read a fact based analysis that gives us –pardon me — hope that Speaker DeLeo has a leadership team that can help him begin to rebuild the public's confidence in our Legislature as a body that can and will consider and debate important policy questions based on facts and values.

DeLeo, in an interview with the Phoenix after announcing the new assignments, says that he was not specifically looking for young chairs — just people with knowledge on the issues, who were willing to work hard. Tne observer suggests this is the “Flaherty model,” referring to former Speaker Charlie Flaherty: “Find the people who are serious and smart, put them in positions of power, and give them enough room to either rise or fall.”

Check out David Bernstein's piece in the Phoenix and tell me what you think.

cross posted at ONE Massachusetts

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Simply putting able bodies in top seats won’t “restore confidence” — that will only be done through actions such as pension reform, transportation reform, lobbyist reform.

    <

    p>What could be accomplished, however, is combating this public perception that centralized leadership is the law-of-the-land within the House of Representatives.  

    <

    p>If the public truly feels that legislation is advanced through a true democratic process, rather than by armtwisting and “what leadership wants” THAT will go a along way…

    • Sometimes I’ve felt that the Speaker is like the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth — basically an elected dictatorship, since all the rank-and-file seem completely indebted to him and discipline is pretty much total. I don’t think this is a good thing.

      <

      p>If DeLeo lets good ideas spring from the chairs and backbenchers, I’ll be impressed. It’s messier in a lot of ways, but it might relieve some of the sense of hopeless deadlock and drift on many issues.

  2. What a great model:

    <

    p>BOSTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–March 27, 1996–Charles F. Flaherty, speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, was criminally charged in federal court with evading taxes, by filing a false affidavit and made-up diary to make it appear as if the thousands of dollars in false deductions he had sought were justified.

    <

    p>Flaherty has agreed to plead guilty to this federal criminal felony.

    <

    p>Flaherty has also admitted, before the State Ethics Commission, that he received over 62 days of free vacation lodging, over a two year period of time, from lobbyists and business interests …

      • Makes perfect sense, my friend . . . it’s one of those things that pretty much go without saying.  Spouting platitudes, however, is easy.  Actually putting them into practice, however, is another thing entirely.  Everyone seems to talk about making things better, but then when they’re put in a position to do so, they become mired in the same machine that’s keeping us all down, progressive, libertarian, conservative, liberal, whatever.  

        <

        p>The machine loves to perpetuate the us versus them fight between liberals and conservatives, because it distracts the great unwashed from the real struggle:  the individual versus the state.

        <

        p>

            • Let’s make the legislature a true part time job and have it sit and do business one quarter per year, instead of full time.  Let’s also impose term limits.

              <

              p>Two steps towards real, meaningful reform.

              • I didn’t want to downrate you because you have valid ideas, but I do not favor them.  Governing is a complex business and needs to have a full time legislature preferably without side work which could lead to conflict.  Term limits deny the voters a right to return good people and elected officials to continue doing what they like to do.  Why is legislating the only job that’s somehow bad to become “professional”?  One should have just as much right to try to keep that job as one would in any other profession by seeking an extension of contract.

                •  . . . at least inherently.  It’s only “complex” in any sense of the word because by making it “complex,” those in power can mask, or shield, themselves from those from who their power derives—the public.  Making government complex is one of the methods by which legislators try to create job security.

                  <

                  p>Your argument against term limits is valid in theory only; returning the bad happens far more often than returning the good, because once a legislator is elected to office, his or her chief job then becomes getting re-elected to office.  The legislator builds a machine, the legislator raises money, the legislator builds alliances with the interest groups who wish to further his or her career, the legislator gets more and more money, and soon, the legislator becomes entrenched in the system.  And since the system largely takes care of its own, the argument that every election day equals a term limit is bogus.  What’s the percentage of incumbents who lose office in this state?  Except for those who get hauled away in shackles, it’s incredibly low.

                  <

                  p>Why is legislating the only job that’s somehow bad to become “professional?”  Power corrupts.  That’s why.

                • If the solution is that voters be more engaged then I’m all for that.  I DO believe however, that elections constitute natural term limits IFF the voters exercise their prorogatives in our system.  No amount of money and influence can keep someone in office; only voters can do that.  If the voters don’t take care of bad legislators themselves, shame on them.  However, it should still be their right to do so.

                • unfortunately.  You know and I know that in the real world, it just doesn’t happen that way.  Legislators care less about individual votes (and voters) than they do about blocks of votes they receive via special interest groups.  It’s not about getting votes, it’s about getting the money behind you, and the way you do that is not to appeal to the individual voter—they’re the low-hanging fruit.  You get the meat of your support via special interest groups . . . and those who are already part of the system and can help you along in your career.

                  <

                  p>C’mon, let’s get our heads out of the sand here.  The only way you combat that is through term limits.  The highest office in the world—POTUS—has a term limit on it.  You don’t think we should put the same sort of governor on a lowly solon sitting in the General Court?

                • While I only partially disagree with you RE: term limits, I wholly disagree with your idea of making it a part-time Legislature.

                  <

                  p>I’m not sure if you’re reasoning is that they have so much time on their hands that they create problems to solve, but it’s absurd to want to condense all legislative activity into a six-month window. If you think legislators rely on lobbyists too much now, wait until they are even more pressed for time.

                  <

                  p>Also, making the Legislature part-time would make it even tougher for “average” citizens to serve. We already hear how its impossible for average workers to get time off to vote, attend Town Meeting etc., how are they expected to suddenly take a leave of absence for six months, or three months or whatever.

                  <

                  p>There are many legislators who are able to run and serve because the position affords them a liveable salary. Take away that salary, and the Legislature will be filled with even more self-employed lawyers.  
                   

                • Get by with less than full time state legislatures:

                  <

                  p>http://www.ncsl.org/programs/p…

                  <

                  p>And I disagree that making the legislature part-time would make it even tougher for average citizens to serve.  Make serving in the legislature akin to serving in the National Guard or in the Reserves.  Done.

                • I don’t see a potential conflict of interest with Guard/Reserve duty.  If we make it parttime we limit what kind of people can serve, because they need other jobs flexible enough to also be legislators.  Needs for legislation arise all the time and constituent service is certainly a year-round thing.  I’m fine with curtailing time needed to spend at the capitol, but remaining time should be spent doing district work, including in a district office.

                • I meant make it akin to Guard/Reserve duty, whereby an employer must ensure that someone who serves, and is called to active duty, either maintains his job or has a similar one waiting for him/her when the term of active service is over.  Such a schema is even a better fit for a part-time legislature than military service, in fact, since a legislative term would be predictable—both the when, and the duration.

                  <

                  p>Perhaps “needs for legislation arise all the time” because the legislature is currently in session all the time—at least in this state.  And if a true emergency arises, the executive could certainly be given the powers to call a special emergency legislative session.

                  <

                  p>Constituent service?  The fact that any private citizen would have a need to get an average, everyday thing done via an elected official indicates to me, anyway, that elected officials are too inter-meshed with average, everyday life.  By curtailing their power, we might create an environment where the average, everyday person doesn’t need the heft of a solon to get done what needs to be done.

                  <

                  p>

                • I’ve worked in the software industry for nearly 20 years now, and I’ve never seen anyone, anywhere, denied a sick day.  Never.

                • Try working at a grocery store, or fast-food restaurant, or some other lower-end jobs. Then imagine one of these workers having to debate whether to stay home and nurse a cough, or show up for work and handle your food.  

                • in my younger years, and have never seen anyone be denied a sick day.  Honestly . . . you think you might be laying it on a bit thick to score a few sympathy points?

                  <

                  p>You really think a solon’s going to have to struggle to choose whether to serve in the legislature or pursue his or her passion flipping burgers for Ronald McDonald’s evil empire?  Let’s try to stay on point:  this subject was brought about because I proposed that companies could adopt a Guard/Reserve-like leave policy for employees who are also elected to serve in a part-time legislative body.  I hardly think that solons are going to come from the burger flipper/cashier/sweep-the-floor class—do you?  Not that they’re any less qualified, mind you, but still . . .

                • The New Hampshire General Court has 424 members (400 House, 24 Senate), making it the third largest legislative body in the in the English-speaking world behind the U.S. Congress and British Parliament. More than 100 years ago, legislators added their compensation level to the state constitution and they continue to be paid exactly $200 per term, making it an entirely citizen-based legislature.
                  While the salary does limit many New Hampshire citizens from serving during their income-earning years, the legislature continues to attract many diverse and dedicated individuals.
                  The average age for a legislator serving in New Hampshire is 61 years old but there are currently 14 legislators under age 30-the largest number of legislators in this age group in the country. The New Hampshire House is 35 percent female and the Senate is 41 percent female, making both chambers much higher than the national average of 22.6 percent.

                  Source: Virginia Drew, director of New Hampshire’s Statehouse Visitor Center..

                  <

                  p>Sound pretty good to me.

                • Sorry, but I’m not letting voters off the hook here.  They should vote for someone else if their person is that bad and its relatively easy to get a name on the ballot for state leg.  There is more of an argument for executive term limits, but I’m standing by what I’ve said regarding legislative limits.

                • Voters share part of the blame, sure—that’s undeniable.  But I don’t foresee the day when the average man and woman on the street gets as excited about average, everyday retail politics as they do about “American Idol.”  Do you?

                • I’ll spare you the rant I could easily get into about people caring more about texting a vote to American Idol than casting an informed vote for public office:)  If power is your concern, I do think there should be term limits for committee chairs and other leadership positions.  Voters, frankly, can also be the worst hypocrites.  They want term limits even as they keep re-electing their own person even given a viable alternative.  They think their own legislator is swell, but everyone else is corrupt.

                • I think you’re a bit off base in claiming that the complexity of modern legislation is simply an incumbent-protection strategy.  Consider two really important public policy issues: health care, and energy.  Both are genuinely, and necessarily, complicated.  Making good policy in those areas is hard because, in addition to the powerful interest groups involved, it’s just tough stuff.

                  <

                  p>I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying, but the complexity thing is more, well, complicated than you’re making it.

                • aeronautical engineering is complex.  Yeah, you’re right—there’s no other answer.  But how much of the legislature’s time is taken up by energy policy, or health care policy, and how much is taken up by . . . “figuring out if private flagmen or state cops should work at road construction sites” policy, or “how can I increase my own power base” policy, or “what time does happy hour start” policy?

            • or use a lottery/seniority based system and go down the line one member at a time and say, “Which committee do you want?”  This can happen without restriction until a committee is full, sort of like registering for college classes.

              • I didn’t suggest each legislator gets to choose his committee.  I suggested the full legislature gets to choose the legislative committee of each legislator.

                <

                p>If the whole legislature should get to choose the chair of each committee, the whole legislature should get to choose the entire makeup of each committee.

                <

                p>Then, wait to see how long it takes the legislature to form a “Go get me another beer” committee and appoint elect all the Republicans to staff serve on it.

  3. ashamed to be white, male, and over 40.

    <

    p>This isn’t the Flaherty model. It is the Keverian model. Let the place run wild and nothing will get done.

    <

    p>Not a whole lot of talent on the team. Nothing to do with political philosophy. Strictly talent. Smizik is highly talented. But some of the others can’t put a sentence together.

    <

    p>We will most likely see the DeLeo era akin to war lords in Afghanistan.

    <

    p>The Petro machine will be getting what it wants without anyone being the wiser.

    <

    p>The liberal machine is so arrogant they will soon dissolve. Egos and infighting. And they will be disappointed because even if the speaker is with them on some issues he won’t have the juice with the membership to make things happen. Too many war lords to deal with.

      • How can we have the conversation the U.S. Attorney General wants us to have with an attitude like that. Everything in bernstein’s column is related to race and gender. Talk abougt a narrow point of view.

        <

        p>I say that the column mde me ashamed to be white, male, and over 40. Rather then pumping the qualifications of the new leadership for reasons other than race and gender Bernstein instead gives us a polemic argueing race and gender are the number one qualifiers.

        <

        p>Judy Judy Judy (Cary Grant never really said that)
        Your reply saying we rule the world did not make sense. The Chubacka Defense for you South Park fans.

        <

        p>Racism and sexism exists in everyone to some degree. We have a long way to go. But don’t lash out at white guys because Byron Rushing is moroon.

Archives