Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Call to Arms! Eight Reps call for return to democracy on Beacon Hill!

By

To begin this process, we are focusing on five areas that we believe will begin to restore the balance of power in the membership and insure that issues will receive both proper consideration and debate. We have developed specific proposals to:

1. Ensure that Home Rule Petitions can be discharged from the Rules Committee in a timely fashion;

2. Make the state budget process in the House more transparent, and make the House operating budget specifics accessible to all members;

3. Provide a leadership election and committee appointment process that distributes more power to the members and less power to the Speaker;

4. Provide legislators with greater control of the operating budgets for their offices; and

5. Eliminate or narrow legislative exemptions to the open meeting law, public records law, and purchasing standards.

Call for Action on Beacon Hill by Matthew C. Patrick, Thomas M. Stanley, Lida E. Harkins, William G. Greene, Jr., Will N. Brownsberger, Steven J. D’Amico, Joseph R. Driscoll and John F. Quinn

The call to action by these eight brave reps, including Rep. Brownsberger who resigned his Vice Chairmanship:

We want the House to become a functional democracy. We clearly see that consolidation of power in the Speaker has given the Massachusetts House a less than democratic form of governance and we believe that the most important thing we can do as members is point out what is so obvious that it has been taken for granted. We want each bill deliberated in the committees and referred to the floor based on merit where it will be fully debated.

The brave Patrick 8 also call for the Open Meeting Laws and Freedom of Information Act to again apply to the doings of Beacon Hill.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m decidedly less than enthusiastic about tying any more groups to open meetings and records laws.  Our discussions about City Hall emails and communications regarding charter schools a few months ago left a really bad taste in my mouth.  There are certainly things that should be public, but we don’t need to eavesdrop on every passing conversation whether done orally or in writing.  The severity with which some people wanted to interpret those laws struck me as ridiculous.

    • you’d agree that the open meeting and public records laws should apply to the legislative branch of gov’t to the same extent that they apply to the executive branch.

      • And THAT is wrong and allows so much to occur in back rooms, in shadows, without records as to tempt way too many into “thin ice.”

        <

        p>Sunlight.  The same requirement for the legislature and governor as for mayors and selectman.  Why not?  I can think of dozens of reasons why yes…

        • Decisions must be voted on in public.  Minutes and campaign finance records should be made public.  Time needs to be alloted on the agenda of meetings of decision making bodies for public comment.  Memos that are acted upon (as opposed to drafts upon which ultimately no action is taken) should be available via a FOIA-type law.  Nobody is served by insisting we listen to every conversation or see every paper scrap on which a note is scribbled.  No official should be afraid to pick up the phone or go out to dinner with a colleague for fear of triggering such a law.

          • You can go out to dinner with a colleague. In fact, you can do whatever you want socially, and if there’s not a quorum you can even get away with talking shop.

            <

            p>They damn sure should be afraid to make a phone call or write on a scrap of paper if it’s for the purpose of making deals they don’t want the public to know about. And really, why else would you be afraid of the open meeting laws? I agree with Ryan. If you’re an elected official who feels that having your meetings open to the public is too scary, feel free to resign.  

            <

            p>That “scrap of paper” that gets an exception to the law could be the one where someone offers to buy the committee’s votes. That’s the downside of easing the restrictions. What’s the upside? Politicians who are either malevolent or too dumb to figure out the rules get in trouble. Those are both groups of people I don’t want making the rules I have to live by.  

            • …a dinner is not a meeting if there were no notice and nothing binding can be decided.  Let’s go after buying votes if that’s the issue.  If I wrote you a note asking you to murder someone for me, is the note the problem?  No, the murder itself is.  If you were my rep and voted a certain way because of a deal, I ultimately will judge you on how you voted, not why.  The upside is that you don’t see is that legislators will spend more time doing the business of the people and less time tripping over themselves accusing each other of trumped up ethical violations.  So often when people get upset about this kind of thing my reaction is “so?”  I don’t need to know that one rep. called another to say I’ll vote for your amendment if you vote for mine.  It’s not about being scary.  I’m not saying there are things the public shouldn’t know, just that there are things that don’t require bending over backwards to make sure they do.

              • I suggest you read the open meeting lae before dissing it. The local government rules allow you to all get together for dinner if you want, as long as you’re not making decisions. Any further dialing back of the rules would mean permitting some decision to be made behind closed doors. The executive session provisions that exist allow any decision the city/town has a legitimate interest in making in secret be made in secret. Take it from a local elected official; these requirements are only difficult to follow if you’re doing something you shouldn’t be in the first place.

                <

                p>How do you know votes are being bought if all the decisions are being made in secret? Open meeting and public records laws make it easy to issue subpoenas and find out. Not having these laws in place makes it difficult. Sunshine also discourages vote buying in the first place by making it clear that if you do it, you’ll get caught.

                <

                p>More time doing the business of the people? Are you a lobbyist? We’ve had three Speakers in a row go down under an ethical cloud; clearly the House at least has trouble doing the business of the people. If accusations of ethics violations are trumped up, the voters can vote accordingly. If they’re accurate, the voters can also vote accordingly. But only if they know what actually happened.

                <

                p>I do care why my Rep votes for a particular bill. Sometimes it’s irrelevant; sometimes it’s not, but that’s an evaluation the voters have a right to make. If the only way he gets healthcare reform is by voting for a bridge to nowhere in someone else’s district, so be it. But if the bridge to nowhere is the price of getting a new roof for my town’s gazebo, maybe we should find some other way to fund it.  

                • I’m more comfortable with your interpretation than some of the ones I’ve heard, which yes do make it sound like dinners are verboten.  I’m not a lobbyist and agree that the occurence of such meetings should be noted for the public.  It seems to me the Speakers and others with ethical issues have been called out under the current laws, which to me says they are being enforced.  Maybe what needs to happen is stronger definitions of a meeting.  What I’m reacting to is the occasions in my town when three selectmen or school committee members (quorum out of a total membership of five in each case) happen to be friends outside of their official capacities and are seen in the same bar.  Someone will accuse them of violating open meeting law when they could just be chatting about their kids.  It strikes me as ridiculous in the extreme.

                • One way to eliminate bs accusations that’s not in the current law, but which I would support, is to have the loser in an OML case pay the legal fees for both sides. Or at least do that for cases where it’s blatantly obvious that there is/isn’t a violation and let each side pay their own in close cases.

                  <

                  p>And if anyone’s making accusations in the media but not in court, all the accused has to say is “If Mr. X is so confident we broke the law, why is he too afraid to go to court over it?”

      • I suppose there’s the occasional executive session, but committee hearings and plenary sessions are public events in my general experience.  Your “favorite” body, the Governor’s Council might finally be opening up.  I heard Councilor Devaney speak at an event last night about a few things she has done to pursue that end, and Jason Panos, who is challenging Mary Ellen Manning in the Dem primary, has made opening the GC a centerpiece of his campaign.

        • that take place behind closed doors, including meetings in which guests are invited to provide testimony that won’t be open to the public…  

          • …should be used VERY sparingly.  More necessary at the federal level for security reasons, but I don’t see many reasons to do so in the General Court.

            • Just get rid of them… which this proposal would do.

              <

              p>I suppose that there could be budgetary discussions, etc. that may have some merit in making open-doors, but applying open meeting laws already solves that: there are situations where closed-door meetings are allowed, but the minutes taken therein must be opened to the public within a few months.  

              • In principle I tend to be reluctant to close off an option entirely, though I wouldn’t mind requiring a supermajority vote (which I know Robert’s does but not sure about the GC) and even a recorded vote to do so.  That way, at least legislators would have to defend their reasons for going into closed session.  Votes themselves must be taken after the session reopens.

                • Open meeting laws already cover that. That’s actually where a meeting can be closed, but minutes have to be taken (and votes recorded), made public within a few months time. I think that’s a fine solution to that potential problem.

                  <

                  p>That said, I don’t think the House as a body actually makes personnel decisions (individual offices do, etc., but not “the House”). I can’t see where this would ever come up.

    • At the very least, we should apply some open meeting standards. No closed legislative meetings, no meetings with lobbyists that aren’t recorded and marked for time/location/etc. Adding these standards would tremendously lift the ethical standards inside the house. For those elected leaders who these rules would be too onerous for, they can certainly feel free to resign.

      <

      p>BTW: We can already get at emails through public disclosure records, from what I know, it’s just not as useful as one would think… because there’s so many damn emails.  

      • ..and gave upon discovering that 90% of them were to authorize staying in Session past 9 pm, and the important votes were gerry-rigged voice votes taken as quick as a tobacco auctioneer.

        • The yeas and nays can always be called with sufficient second.  In my experience the items not roll called are also overwhelmingly supported, though it does seem that all substantive votes should be recorded.

          • Jury-rigged

            <

            p>Gerry-built

            <

            p>That is all. Carry on.
            And when you have time, look up the origins of that second one.

            • Due to a stupid problem, the previous comment referred to the phrase “gerry-built.” The correct spelling is “jerry-built,” and it turns out to have nothing to do with what Mr. Language Person thought it did.

              <

              p>Mr. Language Person regrets the error.

              • I’ve also seen it as Gerry-built, mostly in the UK.  Gerry/jerry being derogatory slang for Germans.

      • I like what you say above and think it’s pretty consistent with what I have said elsewhere in this thread regarding public meetings.

  2. I know Bill Green, personally, from my town meeting and FinCom days in Billerica (back in the early eighties) when he was town moderator. I have no clue about his performance as a State Representative — I knew him as a stand-up guy who sought to do the best thing he could for his constituents.

    <

    p>I applaud this move. Kudos to AmberPaw for this diary, and bravo to Charley on the MTA for promoting it.

  3. This is not thh Senate – A Rep. gets one Legislative Aide and a more senior members and chairs may get another…..Committee Staff belongs with the commmittee…..All office supplies and computer hardware are distributed to centrally to all House members – it would cost the House more money to have each Rep control the budget for supplies etc.

    • Except Brad Jones, who has 17.

      <

      p>Giving each rep control of the budget for supplies, etc. probably wouldn’t “cost the House more,” but it would almost certainly bring far more parity to the building.

      • Brad Jones is the Republican Leader……and has a staff to research, run press and draft policy on behalf of his whole caucus.

        • The House (both houses, really) is far too top-heavy.  Why should the Minority Leader have a staff of 17 and the rank-and-file have staffs of one or two?

          <

          p>If the caucus, as a whole, wants to “run press and draft policy” they should be coordinating to do so, not taking direction from one person.

        • For Brad Jones to have 17 freaking people on his staff. No reason. As someone else said, that’s about as many people as are in the Republican Caucus in the House.

          <

          p>Most House Reps have one, maybe two, staffers. Some of them wait years and years and years to get the second. They need to “research, run press and draft policy,” too. Isn’t this whole thread about, at least in part, how people are frustrated about all the power being funneled to the top — and the problems which that conspires to create? (The answer is yes.) Don’t you think the dozens of reps who have one staffer could better service their constituents and, through their large numbers, draft even better policy than three or four offices at the top, if everyone had two or three staffers? (The answer is yes.) And wouldn’t there be enough staffers out there to ensure reps have at least two staffers each if offices like Brad Jones didn’t have 17, without having to even add much to the total number of statehouse staffers? (The answer is yes — Brad Jones alone could cover the rest of the GOP caucus…)

          <

          p>I sense you have a pretty strong conflict of interest going on here. Feel free to disclose it.  

            • Plus there is no room for all members to have 3 staff members each.

              <

              p>Don’t forget that Senior members who are committees have research staff for the committee – and they are there for members of the committee and other reps who need assistance.

  4. Thanks for promoting the post, which had the intent of supporting the eight representatives brave enough to sign the letter run by the Cape Cod Times story linked in my post.

    • Matt Patrick is a Rep. BECAUSE of a back room deal.

      <

      p>He had a vote total 11 votes more than his challanger.  In two Barnstable precincts in the district, the wrong ballots were given out – for that Atsalis/Canedy race rather than the Patrick/Wheatley one.  It went to court, and Judge Cannon called for a re-vote in the two affected precincts.  Instead, Finneran invoked a rule about the House selecting its members, and seated Patrick in defiance of the court order.

      <

      p>So for him to grouse about back-room deals just means he’s not on the good books of the CURRENT ringmaster.

  5. The Budget (House 1) has hearings – the HWM staff works on the specifics with direction from the Chair and Speaker and indirect input from every member who meets with the Chair –
    HWM Budget Reccomendation is released in April.
    Amendments are filed in three days

    <

    p>They are posted on the web – so all can see what each Rep. filed including: earmarks, policy changes and language changes.

    <

    p>The HWM staff has a week to evaluate, research and categorize each amendment. (Reps and public can do the same)

    <

    p>House Budget debate begins on Monday…Revenue debate is first…..

    <

    p>The Chair meets with members and discuss amendments by category. HWM Staff, Joint Committee Staff, House Counsel, and the Speaker’s Staff are available for any questions or concerns

    <

    p>Changes and alterations are made and a “consolidated amemndment” is filed.

    <

    p>The Conolidated Amendments are filed by category – each is made available to the members and staff as well as online and reviewed and MAY be debated = each Rep has a chance to debate any amendment he or she chooses.

    <

    p>Further, under DiMasi – “oustide sections” to the budget were limited – thus allowing members to file bills and have a more thorough and proper committee review and full debate by the House. (issues that would actually change statute are considered outside sections – such as Death Penalty, In State Tuition, criminal procedure, casinos, slots or gaming, etc)

    <

    p>I believe there should be more debate – but how do you achieve more transparency?

    <

    p>What did we do before we had the internet – The budget process is much more open than it was years ago – but much less debate occurs.

    <

    p>Can you really debate a line item for medicaid spending? or and earmark for drug program in a member’s district?

    <

    p>any thoughts?

    • But you’re talking about a different budget than everyone else.  You gave a pretty decent summary of part of the State Budget process (part of which is done in the House).  The topic of this thread is the House Operating Budget.  

      <

      p>Oops.

      • part of the post (and letter its based on) mentioned the “State Budget Process in the House”.

        <

        p>Many of the comments have focused on the “House Operating Budget” which I touched on above –

        <

        p>I highlighted the actual Fiscal Year Budget in this comment thread.

  6. Why should so many city and town groups and committees be subject to the open meeting laws while the Gov and the entire legislature meet behind closed doors? No wonder we’ve had so many ethical violations.

    <

    p>Stop the madness.

    <

    p>

    Sunlight is by far the best disinfectant!

    • Constituents have a right to privacy when discussing issues with their reps and senator and Governor.

        1. Red herring much — no one is saying a constituent’s conversation when speaking to a legislator is going to be broadcast from the rooftops.

        <

        p>2. Even if that was the proposal, where in the constitution does it say “constituents have a right to privacy when discussing issues with their reps and senator and governor?” (Note: it doesn’t.)

        <

        p>There’s the right to free speech, but not a right to a freedom from any repercussions or complete privacy when making that free speech. Case in point: Anytime you exercise your “free speech” to sign a petition for a ballot question, the fact that you signed it is public information.  

  7. when the House went through every line item and debated every amendment that wasn’t pulled by its sponsor.

    <

    p>There were no consolidated amendments – Ways and Means needed to be prepared to speak to every proposed change, technical or otherwise.  

    <

    p>The consolidated amendment process has virtually eliminated direct challenges to ways and means version of budgetary reality by providing members with the illusion that they are negotiating with the leadership.  Gone are the days when leaders like Joe DeNucci would stand up against the leadership and debate for additional cost-of-living increases or clothing allowances for welfare recipients and win those fights by working his colleagues one-on-one.

    <

    p>Did horsetrading take place?  Of course it did.  But, often it was as likely to be between groups of members – not just the leadership.

    <

    p>Most importantly, far more business was done in public for those members of the public who cared to pay attention. That, ultimately, is what transparency is all about.

  8. But I will admit that it often sticks in my craw to see Reps complain about the speaker’s power as if they had nothing to do with it.

    • that current reps are to blame for institutional operating rules that came before their time? Believe me, the rules do get questioned and criticized, especially internally.    

      <

      p>Please do expand on that.

      • …could throw out the rules at the beginning of each new session.  I believe the first vote is to adopt the rules, so if that gets voted down they can amend the heck out of them.

        • Because of the immense concentrated power of the Speaker’s Office, and because most Reps have a desire to be effective and deliver legislative and budgetary victories to their districts, and because Reps see what happen to the Jen Callahan’s of this world……. You get the picture.

          <

          p>Factually, you are correct.  A big enough coalition (read: a majority) could get rules amendments passed.  But it’s not nearly as simple as you make it sound.  

      • That the reps voted for the Speaker.  Not these eight necessarily, but aside from somebody offering token opposition — and proclaiming that it was merely token opposition — the coronations have continued unabated.

        <

        p>PS: Call me crazy, but it’s great timing that these issue popped up exactly when the incumbent governor is putting together his run against the Legislature for re-election.

        • So these 8 are just doing the governor’s bidding?

          <

          p>You’ve got your conspiracy theories all mixed up.

          <

          p>Lida carrying the Gov’s water? Please.  

        • Not because of the Governor, but because this is the time when people pay attention… election years. If something is ever going to be done about these kinds of issues, it’s going to happen in election years, by making it an election issue… and getting a majority of the eventual winners to agree to important changes — and a promise for a role-call vote. That said, I find it kind of silly to suggest this issue is ‘popping up,’ because of the Governor. If I had to guess, I’d guess Amber supports the Governor — but she’s never been the kind of person who would argue for a position for any reason beyond the fact that she thinks it’s important and right and just.

        • The leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate has been an embarrassment for a very long time. They are a or even the primary obstacle to the very needed changes Governor Patrick has been attempting to accomplish — the changes he was elected to accomplish.

          <

          p>The debacle of the Sal DiMasi/Robert DeLeo “transition” was positively creepy.

          <

          p>Yes, it is great timing, and sorely needed. The Massachusetts House and Senate are very much overdue for a very needed brooming, top to bottom and left to right.

          • One of my data alerts brought the Cape Cod News article and I was thrilled.  I googled the story and built the post, later having a meeting with Representative Brownsberger, the only legislator signing the letter with whom I have discussed this initiative to date.

            <

            p>I am saddened that the courage shown by these 8 Reps did not get more attention in the Main Stream Media.  If successful, if enough representatives and senators find they have a commitment to democracy, a return to democracy, and amend the relevant statutes to have Open Meetings law and FOIA law and procurement laws apply to the legislature and the executive –  light and air, less transparency, real debate…

            <

            p>Revolutionary, really.

            <

            p>So my role was to publicize the courage of those eight at this and other blog sites, and by letters.

            <

            p>To the best of my knowledge Deval Patrick is not involved.  In fact, in reducing the number of line items Governor Patrick is reducing transparency and the ability to track funding, so I view that as a step backwwards.  Giving more power to the Chief Justice for Administration and Management, Robert Mulligan by reducing the Judicial Branches funding to three line items so CJAM Mulligan is even less accountable then the present set of line items, for example.

            <

            p>Sabutai and Ryan are right.  I am supporting the Open Meeting Eight because I believe what they are trying to do is right.  I don’t know what position, if any, Governor Patrick is taking on this issue.

            <

            p>It will be up to Rep. Brownsberger, Rep. Patrick [et.al.] to update what the results/response has been and I would be honored to continue to publicize the cleanup campaign.

            • I’d love to call up my Rep and Sen and ask if they’d get on board with some or all of these proposals.

              <

              p>Maybe it would help if we created a diary designed to get people to make those calls and then respond with the results. If we make this public, we’re more likely to get positive responses. If we keep track of those responses in a public, on-the-record kind of way, we’re more likely to get positive results.

Archives