In the wake of the Governor’s Council’s appallingly close 4-3 vote to approve Fernande R.V. Duffly to the SJC, featuring reasons for voting “no” that I described as ranging “from barely plausible to laughable,” I called for the Council’s abolition:
The Governor’s Council is an archaic remnant of a bygone era that no longer serves any useful purpose – particularly since the vast majority of its functions were stripped after a corruption scandal back in the 1960s or ’70s. The one thing of any significance that it does – approve judges – it does not do especially well, and that function could easily be reassigned to the state Senate. Furthermore, I’d wager that something like 99% of Massachusetts residents cannot name their Councillor. It is long past time to abolish the Council by constitutional amendment, thereby streamlining the government and saving a few bucks in the process.
Today, the Globe editorial page endorsed each of my points, and echoed my call for the Council’s abolition via constitutional amendment.
On the lame reasons for voting “no” on the Duffly nomination:
Last month, three councilors almost succeeded in blocking the Supreme Judicial Court nomination of Fernande R.V. Duffly, a long-serving and well-respected judge…. The thin 4-3 margin for Duffly said less about her than about the odd machinations on the council.
On the Council’s generally lousy work on judicial nominations and the fact that that job “could easily be reassigned to the state Senate”:
In the past, council members showed little sign of taking seriously their primary responsibility: approving gubernatorial judicial appointments…. But the results may be even worse when the council does anything more than just rubber-stamp the governor’s picks…. The final vetting of judicial nominees, who are first rigorously screened by two different panels, would be better carried out by the Legislature, as is done in many other states and at the federal level.
On the fact that the Council “is an archaic remnant of a bygone era,” most of whose “functions were stripped” decades ago:
When the council was established in 1628, it had the important role of checking the power of the royal governor. Now, the eight-member panel is an inefficient rubber-stamping operation at best, and a drama-prone sideshow at worst…. Bay State residents already voted to curb the powers of the Governor’s Council before, in 1964.
On “streamlining the government and saving a few bucks in the process”:
there’s an easy way for the Legislature to prove its commitment to cutting waste: by passing Senator Brian A. Joyce’s bill to abolish the Governor’s Council…. [T]he eight-member panel is an inefficient rubber-stamping operation at best, and a drama-prone sideshow at worst. And it costs taxpayers more than $400,000 a year.
So three cheers for the Globe’s endorsement of Senator Joyce’s bill to amend the state Constitution by abolishing the Governor’s Council. Here’s hoping that the state legislature does the right thing by advancing the bill to the next session, and then puts it on the 2014 ballot. It’s high time.
Frankly, I think it serves no good purpose anymore and I wish they’d abolish it. That said, I feel like this comes up every year or so and nothing ever comes of it. The chances of this august institution being eliminated are slim to none.
I’m still an emphatic NO!
But when those traditions are interfering with the orderly functioning of government, and in addition are costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year that could be far, far better spent educating children, or providing health care to people who can’t afford it, I really think that nostalgia ought to give way to common sense.
…of keeping nominations out of the Senate, so they don’t get held hostage to other political considerations, as often happens at the federal level. I take an if-it-aint-broke-don’t-fix-it approach, and I’m still yet to be convinced that it’s broke.
Why not follow the Article 87 reorganization model and deem a nominee approved if the Senate fails to act on a nomination within 90 days?
I think there is are some legitimate concerns with the legislature being able to hold hostage nominees to leverage things from the Governor. There would need to be a process created like article 87 to ensure steady and thorough consideration. At least, there is no filibuster in the State Senate.
but I’m skeptical that moving it to the legislature would help. Nationally, the Congress is remarkably bad at filling judicial vacancies. I’d like to see if there are problems in other states before agreeing that the state lege ought to take over the process.
If it weren’t for the filibuster & holds and such, there would be no problem with the Senate filling vacancies. Those are not issues with the MA Senate.
Also, with respect to other states, something like 40 states elect their judges, so the universe of comparable states is relatively small, and because of local factors I think likely not to be especially illuminating. What we know for sure is that the state Senate is far more accountable to the people than is the Governor’s Council, the members of which remain almost completely unknown to the public. Also, Senators have staff who can assist them in preparing for judicial confirmation hearings; the Council has no staff and is painfully ill-equipped for the task, as the recent fiasco (and several before it) have clearly demonstrated.
that I certainly agree that the US Senate, even when it manages to hold a confirmation hearing, does not always cover itself in glory in so doing. But again, that’s where accountability to the people comes in.
Even people who pay attention to politics can’t name their GC rep. And good luck finding out anything about the people running. Just because they are elected does not mean that there is real accountability. Elections are only meaningful if voters actually know something about the candidates and the office they are supposed to fill. That is definitely NOT the case for the GC.
<
p>The fact is that I have yet to hear anyone point out any real benefit of having the GC approve nominations instead of having the Senate do it.
<
p>
There is PLENTY of opportunity to find out about the people running and what the GC does. At political events that I attend that are opportunities for various candidates to get together and speak to the attendees, GC candidates are just as prominent as those for the legislature. I’ve also attended events for these candidates just as I do for legislative, so they’re out there. Candidates are also good at explaining what the GC does.
<
p>Besides, if savings is the motive this seems to be the wrong tree to be barking up. Total salaries for the members are just about $250K and there is a barely existent staff. I would call this a drop in the bucket, but that would be insulting to drops in buckets:)
I am sure they show up somewhere, but you really have to be a total die hard to ever see one. I doubt that more than 1/10th of a percent of voters have ever seen a GC candidate. During the last election, I saw no more than two or three signs for GC candidates. The web sites of GC candidates I have seen have had no useful information. While all of the other local candidates appear in the local Roslindale Day parade, no GC candidate has ever appeared while I have lived here.
<
p>It is one thing to say that a highly motivated person could discover something about the GC races, but that does NOTHING to prove your point if MOST people who vote don’t know who or what they are voting for. Without that elections do not provide much in the way of accountability.
<
p>I agree that this is not a huge amount of money, and perhaps it doesn’t matter that much, but that is not a strong argument for keeping the GC either.
<
p>
I tried to find out something about the candidates in my district, since it was contested. I couldn’t. And I pay a lot more attention to this stuff than most.
My two choices were a pair of brothers with near-identical ideologies.
I live in the 5th, in which the incumbent was primaried, and very close to the 3rd, in which the incumbent was also primaried. The 4th isn’t too far from me either in which there were two Democrats running for an open seat. Like I say these candidates were at the various political events like everyone else.
Because I definitely remember seeing Kelly Timilty march in the Parade about four years ago. Also, she was involved in a mini-scandal about a faked Deval Patrick endorsement a few years back. That got her some negative attention, though she still gets reelected every time.
Christopher is right. GC candidates go to events. I concede that you have to be paying attention to notice them.
<
p>As an example, I did a fund raiser for my state senator at my home last spring. Three GC candidates in two GC districts attended. And I’m talking about an event with 40-50 people.
If you are one of the 40 or 50 people who attend those events, great. But for the other millions of registered voters in Massachusetts, tough luck. In most cases, there’s not even a website to help you out.
HR’s Kevin:
<
p>Since the Roslindale Day Parade happens after the Democratic Primary, and it is virtually assured that the Democratic Nominee will win election….then why would Kelly Timilty bother to march in the Roslindale Day Parade? I did see her last year….but I do not remember that she was in the parade. If the Governor’s Council exists in 2014, then we MIGHT see a candidate or candidates for that seat IN the parade. That is because she cannot run again after twenty years in office.
<
p>Sincerely,
Wayne Wilson
Roslindale
And the Democrats won’t allow the Constitutional convention to debate or act next year, either.
I’m sure that partisanship would be playing a role, but I’d bet that the real action would be among the Dems in the form of turf battles between the Senate and the House.
<
p>Most of the proposals I’ve heard about would transfer the judicial confirmation power to the Senate. So let’s say you’re the Speaker of the House – you’re not going to agree to amend the Constitution to give the Senate some huge new power unless you get something out of it, too.
<
p>Besides, the House is used to being top dog. The House can decide without even consulting with the Senate that taxes will not be considered in any budget year. (The Senate can’t initiate a tax bill on its own — it has to wait for the House to propose.)
<
p>The Joint Committee structure also favors the House. Most Committees have 11 House members and 6 Senate members. Additionally (for reasons unclear to me) the Committee staff and machinery are under House control. During the budget debate a couple years ago, Senate members openly expressed their frustration with the Committee process by including a boatload of substantive legislation that the House-dominated Committe process refused to act on their budget proposal.
<
p>The House continues to think that its hegemony in these matters is the natural order of things.
<
p>Asking the House to agree to give the Senate significant new powers would be a little like asking a 1950’s U.S. General to agree that Russia should have the A-bomb. What’s in it for him?
<
p>
It’s all about incumbancy.
<
p>The various Constitutional Conventions are where progressive ideas go to die, as well as good ideas like abolishing the GC. Independent redistricting committee, changes in taxation, all kinds of stuff that gets introduced every two years – BUT, because it requires a change in the Constitution, the various Senate Presidents open and close the convention in microseconds to keep the lid on. Murray, Traviglini, Birmingham, Bulger – the long parade of cowarly Democrats who don’t want to allow the mere electorate to weigh in on these things just goes on and on. And as they dance on your favorite causes just to hear them go squish, you mindlessly support their continued hegemony.
<
p>Good work!
the support is quite mindful, thankyouverymuch.
For the record, these “progressive” ideas were among those that went to die in last session’s Constitutional Conventions.
<
p>House 3407: Rep. Jones’s proposal to impose TABOR in Massachusetts (after all, it’s working so well in Colorado).
<
p>Senate 25: Sen. Knapik’s proposal to elect judges in Massachusetts (after all, it’s working so well in Iowa).
<
p>
The GC will NEVER be abolished by your logic. There will never be progressive taxation, there will never be an independent redistricting commission. And so on.
<
p>Accept your fate as progressives. Cease posting about goals you will never accomplish.
<
p>You are willing to sacrifice that advance of your causes because the risk of alloing the public to vote on others – along with your own – is just too great.
<
p>They might not choose your ideology.
<
p>So – stop kvetching. You’ve kept the lid on.
…that politics plays a part in deciding which proposed amendments are given consideration and that politics can usually be counted on to make issues more difficult. (Who gave you a 6 on that comment, anyway?)
<
p>But I don’t agree that the role of the Constitutional Convention is to forward all or even most proposed amendments to the ballot.
<
p>(Or, for that matter, that will never be a progressive income tax in Massachusetts (since the Constitution already allows for “reasonable exemptions” in the income tax. This is the premise of Rep. O’Day’s and Sen. Chang-Diaz’s progressive income tax bill).
<
p>I’m living with my lot, which is to be conservative when it comes to amending the Constitution, even when that position has decided but not insuperable disadvantages.
Well, at least we’ve heard of them now. Although in general I support the idea of eliminating this group, or at least scaling back their pay by about $10K a year, it’s ironic that the complaining has only acquired momentum when the Council actually started trying to do their job (i.e., by examining a candidate’s records, reading decisions and so forth). When they were merely an expensive rubber stamp, people pretty much ignored them.
By the way, David, in your original post on this matter, in which you called Iannella’s issues with Duffly “barely plausible” or whatever, you said you “suspected he was wrong on the merits”, but you didn’t say much more about it. Have you gotten a chance to look at Duffly’s record on allowing parents in no-fault divorces to leave the state with their kids, thus essentially terminating vistitation rights for the other parent? Was Iannella in fact wrong to criticize her about that- has she been consistent with the law and other family court judges in these types of custody cases?
just because they didn’t get what they wanted (or it came close).
<
p>Just because some of these people didn’t want to confirm “your” Judge, you want to eliminate the Governor’s Council… just because some people didn’t get the bills they wanted passed they want to eliminate the Senate Filibuster… A Judge doesn’t rule the way you want him/her to so they are branded “Judicial activists”… A US Senator dies while in office so MA Democrats change the way his replacement is picked. Stop the whining!
<
p>I would support some of these moves if they weren’t so directly tethered to recent events which people were unhappy about.