It’s all about the rules….”the rule of law” and the ubiquitous, “law of the land” are phrases that define our democracy.
Democrats on Beacon Hill had an opportunity to lead the way to better government last week as both the House and Senate reviewed proposed changed to the rules.
Several rules that would enhance efficient and transparent operations on Beacon Hill such as: “Putting Committee Roll Calls on Website” and “Requiring Roll Call Votes to OK Tax Hikes” and the commonsensical “24 hours to Read Legislation” rule were proposed by GOP legislators (at least Legislators should have time to read bills even if taxpayers can’t/don’t have the time to read a bill when leadership tries to rush it through like they did the gambling bills on Easter weekend and Graduation weekend…..shouldn’t they?). Voting pretty much completely along party lines the Democrats killed progress.
Sadly, many of these full-time salaried and benefited Democrat elected public servants who receive stipends for travel to the State House and preferential treatment for public hearings also voted against, “Limiting Legislator’s Testimony” and (drum-roll please) “Adopt Local Aid Resolutions Deadline” was shot-down. On the heels of a devastating report forecasting reduced local aid, local officials, many whom are volunteers, cannot even expect the courtesy of a timely budget from the state.
Maybe it is time to reconsider those “informal sessions” from August to January every other year during which legislators receive full-pay to campaign for re-election? Maybe taking just a wee bit of that time to have a little wiggle room to get their budgets together during the first quarter of the calendar year…like the rest of the world, would be a bold progressive stance that some Democrat somewhere on Beacon Hill could propose?
Status-quotocrats are the poison of the Democratic party and the citizens of Massachusetts. Three cheers to the Republicans for proposing progress.
…at least one legislator is pleased with the progress and she is a reliable progressive.
<
p>I’ll need an explanation on limiting legislators testimony. I also can’t agree with not paying for a full time legislature. There’s still plenty of constituent service, and yes those informal sessions and committee work. Plus I’d rather they not need to find a second job so there will not be potential for conflict.
who want to testify at a public hearing have to take a day-off work, leave family obligations, incur costs of traveling into Boston. For many that is a major inconvenience and cost prohibitive. For some that is not even feasible if they have additional health challenges or other responsibilities.
Limit legislators’ testimony
<
p>When a citizen taxpayer wants to testify at a hearing, especially if it is a controversial issue, s/he must sign-up on a waiting list. The waiting list goes to the chairs of the committee (or their aides) and despite the facade of “first come, first served” people are taken out of turn depending on their relationship with the wizard behind the curtain or whomever makes those decisions.
Legislators, who have the privilege of directly communicated knowledge of the hearing time and place get preferential treatment to speak first during the hearing – often going beyond the allotted three minutes that a citizen taxpayer may be allowed. Legislators have the privilege of be able to regularly interface with their colleagues, have aides to assist in communicating their position on the issues and in my opinion, should either testify in order that they personally sign onto the waiting list or use their preferential status to meet with committee members at another time. They too, can submit written testimony.
<
p>My post did not suggest not paying legislators full-time. I suggested full-time work (not campaigning) for full-pay. What other job allows people to get paid for 24 months of work and only really do their jobs at full-steam for 19 months? Campaigning, constituent services…working “in the field” during “informal session” are very blurry lines.
…though I guess that one doesn’t upset me terribly at status quo. Sometimes non-committee legislators want to be heard publicly at the committee level. Personally, I’m more than happy to yield to my legislators when it comes to, you know, legislating.
<
p>The campaign recesses do seem a bit long, but legislating was never going to be a punch-the-clock job. I want them to be simply salaried, but not necessarily stay in formal session for its own sake if there’s no business. As for other jobs, I know I get frustrated when those opposed to increasing teacher pay make the argument that they only work 9 out of 12 months. They too should be paid what they’re worth and not have to find second jobs.
misidentifies the problem with the committee hearing process.
<
p>The real problem is that committees schedule too many bills to be heard at one time. Because sufficient time isn’t allocated, members of the public feel themselves to be in competition with each other for the committee’s time and attention, and, as the proposed rule suggests, they feel themselves to be in competition with legislators as well.
<
p>Committee hearings are too often the legislative equivalent of one of those runaway truck ramps you see on steep downhills on superhighways — something designed to absorb as much chaotic energy from the public as possible without doing any real damage to the structure (the leadership hierarchy).
<
p>PS – a clarification on the proposal to require roll call votes on tax hikes. That one wasn’t proposed to enhance efficient and transparent operations. The Republicans already ensure that any tax hike vote receives a roll call vote, so that they have the vote to use against a Democratic opponent in the next election. The proposal was a substantive change to require a two-thirds roll call vote, in order to make it more difficult for tax increases to pass.
<
p>
…complaints here about committees not posting notice for hearings. Has that been resolved? It’s obvious to me that should be done.
<
p>Also, something like requiring two-thirds votes for certain legislation sounds like it rises to the level of a constitutional provision rather than a mere legislative rule.
Actually, many legislators do have “second jobs.” In particular, many have active law practices. And yeah, there’s a potential for conflict.
but it’s awfully hard to do so legislatively. Even if the lege (or a ballot init) were favorable, how do you distinguish between someone who owns a business and someone who is working for his business. Could you own a restaurant? Could you own a law practice? It’s not like the leg are punching clocks for Home Depot.
<
p>Where to draw the line is awfully difficult. Furthermore, legislators don’t make very much when you consider their levels of expertise, education, and connections. It’s not really a surprise that
somemost of them look for extra income elsewhere.…though I wouldn’t mind if it were a bit more. I believe Congress has rules against outside income; we could apply similar standards here.
<
p>2. Congressmen have all kinds of additional income, and they only have to report it in ranges for the ethics bills. They’re called investments, and this is where I think it gets tricky. We can all agree that stocks, bonds, mutual funds stuff is clear investment, not “income”. What about real estate? What about owning a business outright? What if that business is a law firm? See how it quickly slips to what the legislators do now? I suppose you could simply ban them from performing any labor or any managerial operations for their business, but that will put a number of already-existing legislators in a tough bind.
Is their transportation between home and DC and housing in DC subsidized or does it come out of pocket? If the latter the higher salaries are certainly justified. Yes, I could live with a substantial increase in pay, especially as a trade off for prohibition on outside work. In MA there’s not enough distance to justify air travel or Boston housing. What I don’t see is Congressmen practicing law on the side. Can investments be put in blind trusts or something?
My own Rep. is among them, but I’d prefer it not be the case.
Now, if I could only figure where to put the hiring of Jeff Perry to a cushy $110,000 political job. It gives him a nice, soft landing after his November loss to Keating. It keeps him available for the next race in 2 years, or to replace the Sheriff when he decides to retire. Last, but not least, it gives him a major bump in salary for his government pension. It looks like business as usual to me.
You’re right, this time.
Hope you look good in braids.
…giving kudos to the GOP when they deserve it and calling out some of our own.