[UPDATE: Via Twitter, Representative Dan Winslow has endorsed my proposed Rules amendment. Thanks, Dan–you’ll be on the “Hall of Fame” page when the website goes up. Democrats/John Walsh, don’t let me down!]
Regarding the O’Flaherty Affair: I have thrown down the gauntlet and sent the following emails to the esteemed chairs of our two major parties. I will let you know what I hear back!
First, to John Walsh, chairman of the Democratic Party:
Dear Mr. Walsh,
I’m a fellow Blue Mass Group commenter (TedF) and a lifelong Democrat. I’m writing to call to your attention a recent discussion on BMG and to ask whether you personally, or the Mass. Democratic Party, would be willing to endorse a proposal for a change to the legislatures’ Joint Rules that I am proposing.
The issue is as follows: the Joint Committee on the Judiciary has a policy of refusing to make available to the public written testimony or other documents submitted to the Committee in connection with a public hearing. I have corresponded with Rep. O’Flaherty, the House chairman of the committee, on this issue, and I understand from him that the rationale for the policy is to ensure that witnesses whose testimony is especially sensitive (Rep. O’Flaherty raised the example of rape victims) will not feel deterred from testifying by the prospect that their testimony will become public. I do not believe this rationale is sound. First, the hearings are public and, under Joint Rule 1D, may even be videotaped by the media. So it is difficult to believe that making documents available to the public could chill testimony more than the public nature of the hearings chills testimony. Second, Rule 1D has a procedure that permits committees to take testimony in private when appropriate, namely, the executive session procedure. Third, there seems to be no justification for withholding written testimony or other documents in cases that have no such sensitivity. In my case, I was seeking testimony concerning the proposed Uniform Foreign-Court Money Judgment Recognition Act, and I find it impossible to believe that any of the witnesses said anything the least bit sensitive at the hearing.
My proposal is that Rule 1D should be amended to require committees to make written submissions available to the public upon request during business hours, and that, subject to payment of a photocopying charge, the public should be able to make photocopies of those documents.
In my view, the Democratic Party should be the party of open and transparent government. I hope you will agree, and that you will endorse my proposal. I am in the process of putting together a website to push for change on this issue, and I would like to be able to put you on the Hall of Fame page rather than the Hall of Shame page!
You can find the BMG discussion at: http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/07/foiled-letters-blogatory-turned-away-at-the-statehouse/ and http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/07/rep-flaherty-digs-himself-a-deeper-hole/.
Best wishes,
Ted Folkman
Second, to Jennifer Nassour, Chairwoman of the Republican Party:
Dear Ms. Nassour,
I’m a resident of Boston and a lifelong Democrat—please don’t hold that against me! I’m writing to call to your attention a recent discussion on Blue Mass Group, and to ask whether you personally, or the Mass. GOP, would be willing to endorse a proposal for a change to the legislatures’ Joint Rules that I am proposing.
The issue is as follows: the Joint Committee on the Judiciary has a policy of refusing to make available to the public written testimony or other documents submitted to the Committee in connection with a public hearing. I have corresponded with Rep. O’Flaherty, the House chairman of the committee, on this issue, and I understand from him that the rationale for the policy is to ensure that witnesses whose testimony is especially sensitive (Rep. O’Flaherty raised the example of rape victims) will not feel deterred from testifying by the prospect that their testimony will become public. I do not believe this rationale is sound. First, the hearings are public and, under Joint Rule 1D, may even be videotaped by the media. So it is difficult to believe that making documents available to the public could chill testimony more than the public nature of the hearings chills testimony. Second, Rule 1D has a procedure that permits committees to take testimony in private when appropriate, namely, the executive session procedure. Third, there seems to be no justification for withholding written testimony or other documents in cases that have no such sensitivity. In my case, I was seeking testimony concerning the proposed Uniform Foreign-Court Money Judgment Recognition Act, and I find it impossible to believe that any of the witnesses said anything the least bit sensitive at the hearing.
My proposal is that Rule 1D should be amended to require committees to make written submissions available to the public upon request during business hours, and that, subject to payment of a photocopying charge, the public should be able to make photocopies of those documents.
In my view, the Democratic Party should be the party of open and transparent government, but I will take what I can get! I hope that you will endorse my proposal. I am in the process of putting together a website to push for change on this issue, and I would like to be able to put you on the Hall of Fame page rather than the Hall of Shame page!
You can find the BMG discussion at: http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/07/foiled-letters-blogatory-turned-away-at-the-statehouse/ and http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/07/rep-flaherty-digs-himself-a-deeper-hole/.
Best wishes,
Ted Folkman
Thank you Ted! Opening up the process needs to happen, it needs to start SOMEWHERE and it won’t happen all at once. This is a meaningful, sensible first step.
Thanks, Amberpaw! Commonwealth Magazine has also picked up the torch.
What’s up with that?
Transparency friend and House member Dan Winslow recently disclosed this bit of information:
Really. Under what other rules does the Judiciary Committee (or as Chairman O’Flaherty calls it, “my committee”) operate? How about the other joint committees? Do the Senate members even know about these rules? (Not that they could do much if they objected, being outnumbered by roughly two-to-one on most joint committees.)
How about having EVERYTHING governing committee procedure included in the appropriate set of rules — joint rules for joint committees, house or senate rules for house or senate committees. It would improve the openness of government and would look a lot better than adding a category of “Supersecret rules that are nobody’s business” to a pulldown menu on the Legislature’s website.
Hester, it turns out that the Judiciary Committee is the one committee that hasn’t filed its rules with the clerk. So not only can I not get the testimony, I can’t even get the rule that says I can’t get the testimony!
Jenn Nassour doesn’t even respond to Republicans so unlikely she’ll be getting involved in your issue.
(I am posting the following response on behalf of Jennifer A. Nassour, MassGOP Chairman. -Tim Buckley, MassGOP Communications Manager)
Dear Mr. Folkman,
Thank you for joining the MassGOP, the House Republican Caucus and Senate Republican Caucus in our ongoing efforts to bring open and honest government to Massachusetts. Testimony and other appropriate supporting documents submitted to a committee during a public hearing should be available for viewing.
Certainly exceptions can be made to keep certain private information private, as is done in the state’s Public Records Law. But Representative O’Flaherty’s objection would use one narrow example to block the release of all documents on all topics.
Beyond this one issue, I would direct your attention to the fact the Legislature is subject to neither the Open Meeting Law nor the Public Records Law. As such, legislative committees can meet and vote in private for any reason and not release a roll call of the vote, actions that would never occur at a meeting of a city council or board of selectmen. The Legislature is not subject to the public records law that applies to state agencies and city and town governments, so it releases only those documents it deems fit.
You may find interesting a recent column from Commonwealth Magazine, “The real ‘culture of corruption,'” by Maurice Cunningham, an associate professor of political science at UMass-Boston. Professor Cunningham discusses the erosion of public trust when “politicians shut citizens out from decisions that affect them.”
In a system dominated by one party the battle of ideas and priorities is already settled. There is little motivation to go above and beyond the low bar almost cemented in place by the status quo on Beacon Hill. Since I became Chairman I have pushed repeatedly for greater transparency on Beacon Hill in efforts to raise public awareness of the day to day operations of our state government.
It is my belief that the more people know about these affairs, the more seriously voters will weigh their decisions. I am confident that a sober review of a candidate’s record, merit and ideas (and not just the letter next to their name) will break the destructive tradition of reelecting the status quo. As the minority party, and as the agents of change, I feel Republicans have a duty to press for a more progressive and a more responsive way of conducting business on Beacon Hill that better reacts to the wishes of the people it serves.
The ethics reform package introduced by the House GOP is an excellent example of our Party’s dedication to shining a light into the darker corners of our state government. These common sense proposals seek to achieve many of the same objectives that I presume you aim to achieve with this proposed rules change; transparency, openness and honesty.
I cannot help when reading your posts on of all places, the Blue Mass Group website but be reminded of an old saying. “You get what you pay for.” In this case, you get the type of government you support and eventually vote for. I hope you and the other allies in your effort to make these documents public will remember this the next time you step into the ballot booth.
-Sincerely,
Jennifer A Nassour