ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY
Massachusetts Democrats believe that public officials should be held to the highest standards of integrity and accountability. We believe that government should be open and inclusive. We know that preserving the public’s trust in government is critically important to the future of our democracy. As such, Massachusetts Democrats Support:
– Public hearings and other opportunities for citizens to influence the legislative process;
– Developing and utilizing accessible technologies to allow citizens to more directly interface with government and public services;
– Introducing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; and
– Ethics reforms that maintain the integrity of government.
There is no mention of applying the Open Meeting Law to the Legislature
There is no mention of having roll calls and minutes posted online for committees
There is no mention of reducing the enormous power of the Speaker and the Senate President
The Subcommittee that drafted that part of the document consisted of Senator Jamie Eldridge, Mike Lake, and Marilee Hunt. I don’t know about Marilee Hunt, but I certainly expected better from Jamie Eldridge and Mike Lake. Perhaps they were being used as puppets to add credence to this part of the platform. Regardless they owe us an explanation, as does the whole Drafting Committee and it’s Chair Setti Warren, the Democratic State Committee and it’s chair John Walsh.
We need to amend this plank at the convention, to urge the party to make Beacon hill a beacon of transparency and accountability. We need support decentralizing power on Beacon Hill, support transparent committees, and put an end to business as usual behind closed doors.
Some say that the platform is irrelevant and amending it is a waste of time.
I disagree, if progressives can make a mounted effort to say that the Democratic Party stands for better, the press will pounce on the fact that Democrats do not support their own leadership, signaling that leadership’s days are numbered.
Amending the Platform Draft takes time, signatures and resources, of which I have very little. However if you are willing to join me in taking charge, fighting against everything that is wrong with this party, to change it for the better, then please offer your support below or email me at massdems4reform@gmail.com
Maxwell Morrongiello
I remember the convention when the former platform of the Party was tossed out for this joke of a focus-group piece. Jarrett Barrios declared he’d be embarrassed at any platform that didn’t have a strong ethics section…and this is what we get.
The MDP platform has become such a hollow exercise.
It is, but it doesn’t have to be. The amendment you were referring to was abandoned on a technicality. It could have been divided and voted on by plank, but know one pays attention to Robert Rules of Order. I almost made it to the floor to do that , but I was anxious as hell.
The former platform, with substantive points about labor rights, universal single-payer health care, and a number of other important points, had been trashed by the platform committee and replaced by a proposed platform that eviscerated virtually every progressive plank, but had an “ethics” section.
A move was made on the convention floor to revert to the previous platform. It was in that context that Jarrett Barrios said he’d be embarrassed not to have the ethics plank. He was really arguing against the previous platform, which was a vast improvment over its successor. Of course what he claimed he was for could easily have been accomplished by simply reverting to the previous platform and then amending it to include the new ethics plank, but it certainly didn’t seem to me that that was what he was really about.
In any case, the new platform then had to be continually amended from the floor to reinstate the substance of many of the excluded progressive planks. It was not a great day for the platform committee, or for the leadership of our party.
After numerous hearings, testimony, etc., one of Deval’s staffers was put in an office and directed to write the new platform. It was unveiled.
At the convention, many progressive campaigners (disclosure: including me) supported a motion to swap the entire draft out and replace it with the old one. Barrios was one of two speakers against the motion, and he based his argument on the ethics complaint. The convention voted, the Chair called the voice vote in favor of the vote, and attempts to doubt the chair were stifled in the honored tradition of MDP conventions.
I have no reason to doubt this time around would be any different.