It’s pretty obvious that the power held by the Speaker of the Massachusetts House:
- is a corrupting force; and
- leads to actions that are detrimental to the Commonwealth.
Knowing very little about how things work inside the State House, I’m comfortable with asking these two dumb questions in order to get a conversation started:
1) From where does the Speaker derive his/her power?
2) How do we go about changing that to apply the proper checks and balances to the position?
Please share widely!
In many ways, the structure of our government is still pre-revolutionary and the role of Speaker harkens back to pre-1776 Old England and is, I agree, quite ripe for renovations. Kind of like a “This Old House” project.
<
p>Now THAT is a great topic for information sharing, discussion, and ultimately, drafting. The question will be, once the research has been done [and I have not done it yet and certainly won’t start THIS week] whether constitutional change(s) is/are needed, or statutory change (s) is/are needed.
<
p>For example the term “engrossing” of bills is still used. This term hearkens back to when the final version had to be written on parchment.
<
p>There are practices just as steeped in tradition as the word engrossment, for all that the final version of a law passed by both houses is no longer written on parchment with quill pens. Our structure of government in Massachusetts is still a “quill pen structure”.
<
p>It is instructuive that Speaker DiMasi removed cable television from the chamber, the legislature removed itself from the open meeting laws and freedom of information laws, don’t you think?
<
p>It may be that the legislature must clean house, or it will be up to the rest of us to find a way to clean house, and restore the very core of democracy to the legislative process.
<
p>Perhaps as Democrats the current awakening over the Platform is the initial stirrings of the Democratic Party reclaiming its soul [that is, if parties have souls to reclaim].
<
p>I don’t claim to have a position of power, or links to anyone in high places, but I do agree it is time to really examine how our government functions and that the reform that may be needed is more than tweaking a few statutes.
The federal Constitution simply says that the House shall chuse (sic) its Speaker and other officers and I believe out state Constitution is similarly vague. It is the rules of the House that give the Speaker his power and assume that he is the leader of his party in the House as well.
<
p>In the United Kingdom, the Speaker is more presider and administrator rather than agenda-setter. Since the Prime Minister is also part of the Commons he, along with the Leader of the Commons set the agenda. Interestingly, Michael Martin, the current Speaker of the Commons, has announced his intent to resign this month due to some ethically questionable actions relative to approving the expenditures of MPs. Presumably both state and federal framers had the Commons model in mind when drafting the respective Constitutions and didn’t feel the need to elaborate on what they saw as obvious.
<
p>The Speaker is meant to represent the entire House in its relationship to the executive (Crown or Governor) and there is a tradition which calls for the Speaker to beg off. The unlucky person chosen must be “dragged” to the Chair, a ritual which is still followed in the Commons. In the Middle Ages, the Speakership was a risk to one’s life because if the sovereign didn’t like what he heard from the Commons, the Speaker was likely to pay with his head (so much for not shooting the messanger!).
<
p>I have commented on this previously. I believe everything possible should be done to get rid of political risk associated with crossing the Speaker. Committee chairs should be elected by the House; committee positions should be chosen in order of seniority; office space should be allocated by seniority, lottery, or committee suite. The rules should treat the Majority and Minority Leaders as equivalent positions rather than Speaker and Minority Leader as is currently the case. In the UK, the Speaker resigns his party membership upon election and is often elected by acclamation (though Michael Martin had a contested race). Ultimately, I believe we have to hold our respective Representatives accountable for making the changes. I would also propose elections to leadership by secret ballot, which I realize will strike some as antithetical to democratic transperancy, but has the benefit of those elected not knowing whom to favor or disfavor.
The Speaker only enjoys as much power as is given to him by the House members.
<
p>Because technically, everything he does is approved by the membership. Anytime he appoints someone to a chairmanship or strip a chairmanship from somebody, it’s approved by the membership. Anytime he wants to increase stipends, it’s approved my the membership. The two bond bills that contained money for Cognos? Approved by the membership.
<
p>It’s not about reforming the post of House Speaker. Its about electing state representatives who aren’t interested in being sheep, and will stand up and say No when appropriate.
with apologies to Pogo, the problem starts with us. Water runs downhill, apathy runs uphill. We have the least competitive elections in the country. All and incumbent needs to do to get re-elected is get his/her nominating papers signed and filed. We’re apathetic about the legislature, the members know it, and they just drift along with the tide, for what has become a lifetime job if they want. The power in their life is the speaker, not the voter. He can make their life miserable and/or their career short. We can’t, we have no choice.
<
p>When was the last time you saw or heard from your Rep.? I’ve been on our Democratic Town Committee for 10 years and chair for 3; my Rep doesn’t even know my name, never bothers to call, and is always “too busy with House business” to make any meetings (well, she is in The Leadership, ya know). The Republican rep who shares the town treats me better.
<
p>When was the last time anybody on Beacon Hill took on the Speaker, any Speaker? Or put up a fight about anything?
<
p>Until we get competitive again in our politics we are going to keep going through this.
<
p>This is not the Democratic heaven we thought, and promised people, when we became this supermajority party, and our Republican friends went South and didn’t come back. We got the “more” Democrats, now we need to work on the “better” Democrats. And we need to hold them accountable for their support of The Leadership. If the speaker sucks and their voting for them, we need to find alternative reps.
<
p>Until that happens the speaker is untouchable.
<
p>
“more” turned out to be much easier than “better”
<
p>The apathy is largely political, though. What does “better” mean and how do I recognize it if it bumps into me at the shoe store?
Been to Town Committee meetings more than once since she’s been elected a year and a half ago, and hosted one of them at her home. Note I was very, very involved in her campaign to be elected. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. You’re right that we must look at ourselves — if you have a bad rep, why aren’t you organizing against he or she? If you can’t field any competition, why aren’t you collecting your 250 signatures? Just fielding a serious primary campaign generally results on DINOs becoming more liberal. Case in point: Rep. Donato. He voted for ending 1913 after voting against marriage equality at the ConCons. That was not a coincidence — as he faced a fairly tough primary that was in great part centered on his anti-marriage votes.