I was sharing panel duties at the LWV with Pam Wilmont from Common Cause, and Janet Domenitz from Mass PIRG whose respective organizations have pushed for a more open government for a long time, and have data rich websites complete with specific policy recommendations.
Having only opinions supported by experience, I found myself waxing nostalgic (google that) about how the old open budget debate process made legislators more accountable and allowed for more efficient and effective lobbying. We used to organize our grassroots networks to call in the night of the scheduled debate to tell their rep or senator they would be watching.
And it proved the 1st rule of lobbying – policy makers make different decisions when watched by the affected constituency.
And yes there was some silly shenanigans by sleepy and/or inebriated members of the Great and General Court. Cheap price to pay I think.
crossposted at ONEMassachusetts
Line item by line item — how long do you think that would take?
But it does. Depend I mean.
<
p>Some items are not debated at all. Some line items are debated for hours and hours. Especially those amendments offered by Republicans or others with minority views who want to make a point or embarras the Democratic Leadership. They wear down eventually and then the debate marches along.
<
p>There are about 800 line items,plus 150 outside sections. In the past there have been 2 to 30 amendments to eatch line item and sometimes 40 or so new outside sections. There are no time limits on debate, but someone can call the question.
<
p>This year wll be very different.
<
p>Every single legislator knows we have no money that can be used to increase their favorite program.
<
p>Some will be pointing out waste and fraud (sigh) and some will be offering various revenue options and try to direct the money to various state programs or to earmark for their favorite program.
<
p>Some will be postering for their district and planning to insert their stiring speechs into campaign ads.
<
p>To answer you question directly, I would be $50 bucks that the debate in the House may take up to 7 days. In the Senate 4 days.
It was a bit of a rhetorical question. It’s just that I’ve sat through too many town meetings to see much rhyme, reason, or speed happening in a budget examination. On one hand, legislators are presumably more knowledgeable about budget issues than townsfolk, and on the other townsfolk don’t tend to mug for the cameras during a debate.
<
p>I imagine a state budget debate could get into two pretty full-time weeks, especially if there’s anything the least bit controversial in it. Imagine any programs that could help illegal immigrants or charter schools.
<
p>I think there’s a balance between the usual clip of “yeas, nays, yeas have it” and a line-by-line examination.
and would take the day off to go down THAT dayn only, talk about access to justice, and be able to tell how much went for what, and sometimes it made a difference. Really.
<
p>Imagine being able to do that about higher ed funding, or k-6 funding….
Not only which committee meets when, but which items are on the agenda for a particular day?
are officialy posted in the House and Senate Clerks office, sometimes according to the joint rules (adequate notice), sometimes not. Later when the new chairs get themselves in their new offices and organized the schedules and agendas will be available on the state website. Among other troubles the fancy new bill tracking system broke down during bill filing. Most bills are still not available in print and have not been assigned to committee. They are processing more and more every day.
You know I am all for transparency and an Open budget process.
<
p>I asked candidate Higginson tonight in a neighborhood forum if he would support making the legislature subject to the Open Meeting Law and he responded in the affirmative. We need to ask all of our candidates this question.
<
p>This sounds great in theory, but in practice a full open meeting law requirement for the legislature would likely lead to far more political grandstanding and less substantive discourse than there is even now. The legislative process would slow from a crawl to barely perceptible stir.
It won’t take a long time if they are mature about it. If they know they are being watched line by line, they will be more considerate of what their constituency wants and needs instead of what the lobbyists want, or what their best buddy down the street wants, or what their biggest campaign contributors want.
it was banned in the first place. Is there some story behind that?
Depends on who you are talking to. Ask anybody who has been around the State House for more than 10 years and they will tell you covering every formal session in the state house including line item by line item debates on Channel 44 was pretty expensive, and not very many people watched it, and those that did watch it were self interested people like the press or constituents organized by special interest groups. (That opinion NOT supported by any data is true enough. The press got real lazy and did not sit in the galleries and missed a lot of small group work going on in the back of the chamber. Plus Channel 44 wanted to broadcast more captivating performances like Masterpiece Theater and Are you being Served reruns.)
<
p>They will tell you that TV also gave a platform for trouble making and posturing Members who talked too long and too often.( They still do)
<
p>They will tell you that a public line item debate is a messy and inefficient way to decide things and this is a representative democracy after all and that includes the Legislature who elects their Leadership to provide a democratic process for them to work together to build a consensus in private sessions. (Yes indeed open discussion between people with strongly held opinions, even under Roberts Rules is messy and inefficient. So move the question already.)
<
p>Lots more theories out there, but I gotta get back to my day job.
don’t put it on channel 44, put it online. best of both worlds.
As the character played by Jack Nicholson said, “you can’t handle the Truth” in our case it may have a ring of truth in it.
The current financial meltdown has unveiled several practices that have evolved over the last 20 years that we have seen collapsing Home Ownership may actually come to collapse state government.
<
p>To say the least the documents from the MTA and testimony given thus far it paints a real picture of a fincial shell game with debt here in the commonwealth.
<
p>The premise was not to hide it from the taxpayers as much as try to reduce the burden all in all IMHO it was used at the time with that motive if you push debt out far enough the impact of the cost shrinks as the economy grows, what was not taken into real consideration was a scenario that included this collapse or a real change in the investment world which as we can see has happened thus the actions that were thought to have a value has only costs and eventual pain.
<
p>We do need a full accounting in simple terms we need to stop the shell games and adopt as reasonable as possible a pay as you go government with real long term projects amortized on a conventional schedule no more sub prime practices, no more Interest only notes with balloon payments in the future but real interest and principle on a scale we can manage currently it may be we are in a sea of unmanageable debt that bargains on a pot at the end of a rainbow.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I fear that televised hearings would only lead to more “dog and pony shows” and add little to the public’s understanding of what happens at the legislative level. In fact, how much of what is really happening is evident from observing a legislative session? It’s analogous to that old courthouse refrain: “They call it the ‘halls of justice’ because the only place where you can find any justice is out in the hall”
<
p>I am a Worcester resident and I think our televised city council meetings do much more harm than good.
<
p>The Worcester newspaper often runs a breakdown of recent bills and local legislators’ voting records, but even that is hard to decipher with all the legislative games that are played. Almost all the votes fall strictly along party lines. Doesn’t THAT build confidence in the deliberative and open minded nature of the Massachusetts legislative process?
And you can influence both. Every policy arena is a very human place populated by very ordinary and very gifted human beings whose behaviors almost always change when they are being observed and held accountable by their publics.
<
p>