As next in line to serve as Governor in the absence or death of the current Governor, the Lieutenant Governor’s current role can be crucial. However, the position can be so much more than that.
What I propose is that the LG serve a truly #2 position as Chief Operating Officer of the Commonwealth.
I believe the best approach would be to codify the changing role in the Commonwealth’s Constitution, and will push strongly for the change to be made. But I won’t sit on my hands until then.
Details below the fold:
Rebooting the LG
I would use the California model as a starting point for the role of Lieutenant Governor as COO and expand it over time. In California, the current LG, Gavin Newsom, serves on key boards, including the Board of Trustees of the California State University system as well as the California Commission for Economic Development.
Massachusetts has over a dozen state, private, non-profit and academic agencies that focus on economic development, including the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, MassDevelopment, the Massachusetts Office of International Trade and Investment, MassEcon, MassCAN, and the Gateway Cities Project. Decentralization like this leads to a loss of focus, a lack of direction, and the kind of largess that leads to casinos being considered as anchors of economic development.
As my first step in redefining the role of Lieutenant Governor, I would ask to be appointed to each of these boards. I would convene a meeting of representatives from all of these groups to a single board to move Massachusetts Forward. The goal would be to not only increase communication and collaboration across all of these agencies and groups, but also to push for more unity of purpose and cohesion among the groups. Over time we could identify and merge redundant organizations, using the savings to focus on new opportunities.
Abolishing the GC
Beyond bringing government’s relationship with business and the economy into the 21st Century, I would look to bring government itself into the 21st century.
To do that, a necessary step is abolishing the Governor’s Council. The job of screening judicial nominees and diluting the executive’s authority over the judiciary is an important one. The body as it currently functions is an antiquated waste of taxpayer dollars.
I propose that the state Senate take on the role of vetting and confirming judicial nominees- first by hearings and a vote via the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, assuming the Judiciary Committee passes the nominee, by a full vote of the Senate.
I’m running because the Commonwealth is at a tipping point and we have an opportunity, right now with a Lieutenant Governor COO, to create a Commonwealth that provides opportunity for every generation to prosper.
Maybe even specifically Tea Party?
Also note that there’s far more than “over a dozen” agencies. There’s a dozens of just quasi-public agencies that do development and financing. Using your criteria there’s more like a hundred agencies in this state.
I’m sure every one could make the case that they are important and do a job the public wants them to do.
Not sure how decisive this will be for the LGs race, it seems that regardless of who wins, we will be stuck with the GC until the unlikely amendment is passed. That said, this is the very kind of reform I proposed on BMG before-having the State Senate Judiciary Committee and full Senate confirm rather than the GC.
We lose a bloated, vestigial, and anachronistic third legislative branch and consolidate that essential checking power to the Senate where it belongs, and where it resides in our federal government and that of most states. So great idea, implementation is another, and whether the LG gets appointed to those agencies depends on what our nominee thinks.
Interesting proposals though.
Good government is a progressive idea. If a branch of government or an agency is self-serving, rather than serving the people, it should be eliminated or reformed. Eliminating the GC along the lines Leland proposed seems like a fairly common sense reform.
I’m all for throwing the Council overboard, but I know at least eight votes, he’s lost. lol
…but I haven’t seen any concrete complaints that need to be reformed. All we hear about are individual counselors doing something embarrassing. If we had something closer to the NH model it would be worth it. The Councilors themselves will tell you they never see press in their meetings, who then just turn around and write ill-informed impressions. How many previous Speakers have gone to jail? I don’t see calls for abolishing that office.
Note to Bob, please don’t push a false historical narrative like the modern “Tea Party” does and you did in your promotion comment. The 1773 protest was not about “the system”. As we constantly remind the “Tea Party” the beef was with taxation (and corporate favoritism) WITHOUT representation. We directly elect our Councilors which is itself a reform as they were originally chosen by the Senate from among themselves. If it were really only an unnecessary instrument of hated British imperialism I doubt very highly that John Adams, who advocated for independence before advocating for independence was cool, would have written it into our Constitution, which was in turn ratified by the same generation that witnessed the revolution and original tea party. I sincerely believe that if we were to go the NH route we would in fact produce better government.
…but reformers like Mike Dukakis strip it of many powers during the sixties. And really, the NH model is crazy. In NH the Council gets to approve cabinet appointments, so it is very common for Cabinet heads to curry favor with the EC and thwart the firing of the cabinet secretary, because the EC won’t approve of their replacement. This has created a regular situation where a sitting Governor has to have a member of their cabinet that is a holdover from the previous administration!
That is a model you think we should move to?
I’ve always been surprised the Gov. gets unilateral appointing authority of the cabinet here. There is an order in place forbidding judicial nominees from contributing to the campaigns of the Gov., LG, and GC members within a certain window prior to being considered and if we were to expand the pool of people confirmable by the GC I would expand the order accordingly.
Let’s say the Governor’s Council was one of them. In any event, it certainly is a legacy of the colonial government the tea partiers were protesting. Bottom line: rule by the British king was bad for Massachusetts and so is this relic.
…but it does not have the same structure as then. You’re welcome to disagree with Adams, but again if he thought it was only good for royal government he never would have kept it, of that I am confident. They are elected rather than royally appointed, which like taxation with vs. without representation makes all the difference.
The fact is that the *vast* majority of voters have no idea who any of the GC councilors are or what they do. You would be lucky to find one person in a hundred who can name their GC representative. That does not lead to an effective or meaningful democratic vote.
Well, I sort of contest that just because the general populace is not *aware of their function*, or who their GC is, we should just throw away the entire body. After all, a person may know who their Rep or Senator is, but may not know the full description of their job from a day to day basis simply because the mysteriousness behind politics (i.e. back room deals, etc). I, of course, am not one of those persons.
Throwing away the GC is not the answer.
I agree with that but I don’t think there’s anything in this state anyone here thinks needs to be eliminated.
…several people, including at least two of the editors, who do believe the Council ought to be eliminated.
I was referring to any state agency or even any program. That part of Mr Cheung’s proposals has been completely ignored for more endless blah blah blah about the GC, which this blog seems to engage in about once every six months.
I would much rather have a separate non-legislative body vet nominees. It’s the Judicial Nominating Commission that seems redundant (and can be eliminated without a constitutional amendment). At the federal level we see nominees held up often by unrelated issues and I do not want to see that here. I’ve been doing some more research lately into the role of the NH Executive Council. They are very proud of the transparency, accessibility, and accountability they bring to state government. I think if we improve those areas and if anything expand the role it could be an institution that serves as well and we can be proud of.
(NJ has an interesting model. The current LG there is actually the first one as it is a newly-created office. The constitution requires that the Governor appoint the LG to another cabinet post and as such such she also serves as Secretary of State.)
The Massachusetts State Senate doesn’t have anonymous holds or filibusters, but a straight up and down majority vote. It already is what we want the federal Senate to be. I don’t see how a straight up and down vote in the Committee, followed by the full Senate, would lead to obstruction, even in the unlikely event opposing parties controlled the Corner Office and the Senate.
We see all the time examples of things being held up in the General Court that are not favorable to leadership, and I fear this is just potentially more leverage that could cause trouble if they get that power.
Indeed, since they have very little accountability to the voters, they have a much easier time of doing it.
The great thing about the GC is that the Governor is the Chair of the Council, so it’s not like having an opposing committee chair to give him a hard time. They might vote down a nominee as is their prerogative, but the Governor can make sure it’s on the agenda. (In case anyone is thinking the LG is the chair, the constitution designates the Governor as chair, though in practice it is delegated often to the LG. The LG elected with the Governor is not likely to cause the Governor trouble in this regard.)
Also there is no inherent reason to have little accountability. They are subject to election every two years like the legislators. I’ve heard Councilors say press doesn’t show to their meetings so it sounds like it is the latter who are not doing their job.
let’s abolish the LG office too.
but there is one conceivable reason why we need a LG: there could be a scenario in which the sitting Governor and the sitting Secretary of State (next in line, after the LG) are either in the opposite party or otherwise have an antagonistic relationship.
It would be very easy for a SoS with that kind of a relationship to pull shenanigans if they had to fill in, whereas a LG will stay in line.
Otherwise, I’d be fine with it, but we won’t always have Bill Galvin as our SoS and we won’t always have a Democratic Governor.
while it is true the SoS is a political position by definition, I do like the idea of it being less political. You manage the records, the voting, that sort of thing, and stay out of the day-to-day or policy in other areas.
I don’t like the idea of the SoS being next in line for the cornah office because it invites a different kind of SoS candidate, and not for the better methinks.
…because of the Secretary’s role as chief elections officer of the state I have never been completely comfortable with the idea that he is elected via a partisan nominating process. We haven’t had this problem here, but look at how Katherine Harris of Florida used and abused her position in 2000.
Other LG candidates have a stance on this? It seems like it would be tougher to argue for reasons to keep than it would be to argue to get rid of it.
Ya kidding me dude. Talk about glass houses. Listen up. The state senate approving judicial nominees turns it into one big political quid-pro-quo involving any other piece of legislation or personal vindictiveness and lemming senators.
But really, this is so funny. Of all the candidates taken this position is the one with literally nothing to do but for casting deciding votes in the body it wants to destroy.
I can defend the G.C. I can’t defend the L.G.
ON SUBSTANCE:
I ran for Governor’s Council in 1998. Christopher is exactly right. Cheung’s proposal will result in an over-politicization of the process of judicial appointment in Massachusetts.
First, a little background. There is a spectrum in the states with direct election in some states, ranging all the way to nearly pure executive appointment with firm tenure, which is what we have in Massachusetts.
An important element is the nomination stage. In Massachusetts, the Judicial Nominating Committee (which is appointed directly by the Governor) proposes nominees to the Governor. The Governor then nominates.
But the only democratic check on this essentially lifelong judicial tenure in Massachusetts is the Governor’s Council, which retains the power to veto judicial nominees of the Governor. The Governor’s Council is directly elected by the voters, who are confronted with the formal name “Executive Councillor” as they vote.
(My proposal when I ran in 1998 was to open up the process to greater public participation by renaming it the Judicial Council – so voters would have a prayer of knowing what they were voting on – and having the meetings moved to evening hours in a larger public space.)
Now, back to Cheung’s proposal. He is another in a long list of those suggesting that we throw it to the Senate. I worked in the Senate. I respect the Senate. But this is a disastrous idea.
We have a judiciary that is tremendously respected by knowledgeable lawyers throughout the United States. The Massachusetts judiciary has a proud history of a deep progressivism and respect for the individual dating back to, and indeed before, the time of John Adams and beyond that, a broader history of foundational achievement in the law from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., to Louis Brandeis (SJC Law Clerk), to Margaret H. Marshall.
One of the prime reasons for this proud tradition is that our system of executive appointment has served the cause of judicial independence quite well. It enables the judiciary some insulation from the passions of the times, and the administrators of our judiciary continue to guard this independence with energy. Cheung’s proposal puts all of this hard-earned independence at risk.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CANDIDATES AND WHAT MOTIVATES THEM:
Now, there is no reason to suspect that Leland Cheung would have any familiarity with this history, since just a few years ago, he was not only running for office in Virginia, but also as a conservative Republican. Perhaps I am wrong and he understands the context into which he has waded today, but I doubt it.
I doubt it in part because I witnessed his speech at the Democratic Convention, which sounded many of the themes of Reaganism: American Exceptionalism; an extreme admiration of entrepreneurialism; and the glories of American meritocracy, for examples, without a hint of a critique as to why that meritocracy remains so very distant – indeed receding.
I have no problem with persons switching parties – nor ideologies (if that is actually the case here), but when someone from another party and ideology attempts to suddenly ascend to one of this state’s highest offices without ever respecting the public enough to tell us why, there is a problem.
As someone who practices criminal law in our courts representing the indigent who are criminally accused, and who has developed admiration and respect for the judiciary of this Commonwealth, I suggest that many of us care deeply about the judiciary, and are still attentive enough in Massachusetts not to easily buy a product because of the energy and charisma of the salesman alone.
Ten years ago Mike Lake was fighting for the vulnerable in this state. Steve Kerrigan was laboring in the vineyards for an Attorney General. What was Leland Cheung doing? Is it really too much to ask such a recent conservative to labor in our vineyards for a while?
If such an individual gives any explanation for his ideological change of heart, I can absolutely respect it and listen to them anew (Charlie Crist, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee and Ronald Reagan himself are examples of such persons), but I have yet to hear this from Leland Cheung. Does that matter? Has he had a sincere epiphany with regard to the poor, the ostracized, and the oppressed? Good. Let’s hear it. If he’s conservative. Fine. No problem. Some of my very closest friends and relatives are.
But to now hear that he has turned his sights on the Massachusetts judiciary suggests that those who care about it inquire further and pay attention.
Terry McGinty
Legal Fellow 1992 Sen. Patricia McGovern
Legal Fellow 1993 Sen. Ted Kennedy
Leland Cheung is in his second term as an elected official. City Councilors are the front line of nuts and bolts public sector work and policy. Leland deals ever day with issues – both large scale and smaller – as a City Councilor. That’s two terms more than either of his opponents (who have not toiled in the vineyard of elected office).
And lets put the decade old run for the legislature in Virgina to bed please. Dragging it up repeatedly and acting like its new information is getting lame.
As for his progressive creds – twice elected citywide in Cambridge. That’s Cambridge. Ya know, the People’s Republic of Cambridge as our conserative friends call it.
And by the way, Cheung is the only one of the three to actually win an election. Mike Lake lost the Auditors race and Kerrigan (running against an incumbent Democrat with a 95% Labor voting record – who was away on active duty in the military during the election) got smoked in a primary for State Rep.
I appreciate where you and Fred are coming from, I back Lake too, and I backed Guardia with you both during that State Senate race. And I appreciate your perspective-in fact-it’s a shame you lost your race since the Governor’s Council is full of clowns who don’t understand their function.
As Yvonne Abraham and Charlie Pierce clearly showed with the Berman fiasco. We had one moron claiming that defending a Guantanamo inmate was akin to supporting terrorism, and another, Devaney from Watertown, scoring some points with her hometown Armenian base by claiming Berman backed the ADL against labeling the 1918 mass killing a genocide (a claim that was false BTW).
These are not the sharpest tools in the shed, and they don’t seem to be encouraging judicial independence or progressiveness. Particularly since it’s one of the few boards teabaggers can get elected to in this state, including a pair of brothers, one a ‘Democrat’ the other ‘Republican’ who abused the GC to serve their Fox News infused ends while getting the perks and salary of a once a month no show state job.
I agree with you that electing judges is a terrible idea, IL does that and we have had a legally insane judge retained by ignorant voters and machines. But, it seems that our neighbor to the south is doing a good job. Gov. Malloy selected judges from a non-partisan commission and is then putting that batch before the General Assembly which is expected to confirm them. I don’t see why MA can’t have a similar model.
I am backing Mike Lake since I have interacted with and know him more, though I also know Cheung from my time in Cambridge. He seemed like a decent councilor, but was also clearly a climber. His ambition to be Mayor was nakedly on display during the last vote, and I definitely think voting for him since you hate the GC is a rather poor idea. Very little the LG could realistically do on this front. Not sure if his other goals for the office are sound either, but it’s not a bad idea or a Republican proposal.
Let me set the record straight.
I have been a resident of and activist in Cambridge for more than 25 years. During his tenure as a City Councillor (and that is how we spell it in The People’s Republic) Leland Cheung has been one of the hardest working, most productive members of the council and that is why he was the top vote getter in the last municipal election. If Cambridge had a popularly elected Mayor which we do not, Leland might well have become Mayor by now. Leland has been a strong supporter of the LGBT community. He worked harder in the campaign for Elizabeth Warren than anyone I know. He is like the energizer bunny — he is everywhere! I don’t know when he sleeps.
I attended his announcement for his LG campaign event held last January. After his speech he asked for questions. I raised my hand and said that I had been watching the candidates for Governor at forums and one candidate (Don Berwick) was talking about taking a serious look at Single Payer Health Care for the Commonwealth. I asked (in front of the press) if Leland became LG would he be interested as well in taking a serious look at this. Without hesitation he responded that he didn’t need to look at it because he knew it was the “only way to go!” And then he launched into a 3-minute policy wonkish elaboration of why Single Payer is the best approach to health care. I must say I was impressed and thought this was gutsy. Leland had no idea that I would be present that day let alone ask that question — it was totally spontaneous.
I respect my friend Terry and also would like to have seen him serve on the GC and while he makes a compelling case against what Leland has proposed here, Leland’s thinking is imaginative and he is no conservative.
I have said here before that all three of our LG candidates are bright and gifted young men who would each put their own individual stamp on the LG office and I’m confident that Leland if elected would work tirelessly to improve the Commonwealth for all it’s citizens.
…is hardly reason to abolish the institution. Otherwise we should abolish Congress for some of what some members say. Watertown would find itself without a Town Council since I believe Devaney also serves on that body. The solution is to challenge them, and for that matter Devaney is being challenged this year in the primary.
Marilyn Devaney is no longer on the Watertown Town Council, though she did serve on that body in past years.
I think you like the GC because it is quirky and antiquated and unique, like the Queen you adore, or the PR/Plan E system old people in Cambridge seem to think responds well to our 21st century challenges.
You said the Senate would be regressive and obstructionist, Terry said they would be judicially ignorant-I just showed you a clear example of the GC being regressive, ignorant, and obstructionist at the one duty they actually have. How hard could it be to do your homework for a bimonthly meeting? They had other duties and they got taken away, thank God. And we also see how the EC in NH is actually flawed and despised. Give our Senators, who actually know the people they get elected by, and have the specific knowledge, to make these decisions. Surely they could handle the added duties in a way that is cheaper, more efficient, more transparent, and more accountable than the status quo. CT’s judiciary has ratings that are just as high as ours without this appendix of government in desperate need of a biopsy.
I do appreciate a certain amount of tradition and do not see the system as broken enough to abolish it. Again, if certain members aren’t doing their job throw them out. I still like a lot of what NH does and I think it could serve us even better. Reform it to be more open is my solution.
You stated that the Senate would be more regressive, more obstructionist, and more ignorant of the judicial process. I then countered that with examples of several councilors acting incredibly irresponsibly, obstructing a perfectly qualified nominee, and doing so with specious reasoning. You then countered with ‘that’s just politicians saying stupid stuff”. I countered by arguing that you are contradicting yourself-when the GC is obstructionist that’s just politicans being politicans and we can vote them out-but when the State Senate obstructs-that’s a calamity that no voter could correct.
It is far easier to primary and vote out a bad state senator-just like at Charlie Fallon’s quick fall in Malden-than it is a bad Councilor. Devaney has been there for years, and in spite of personal and political foibles, and in spite of losing her other elected position, she is still there. A smart guy like Terry wasn’t able to get on. Fox News parroting teabaggers get elected to the Western MA district, and some of those ‘Ds’ hold teabagger views.
in 2008, Devaney got challenged by a firefighter, who I voted for in the same primary I voted for Ed Reilly against Kerry, I knew both votes were entirely symbolic, the one where I was told I was the only voter under 30 they saw all day, and this was in a Cambridge precinct. The firefighter was far less qualified, in so far as he had no legal education, or experience, or business running for GC, but at least he had integrity by virtue of not being Devaney. And he still lost.
I would much rather have a Charlie Fallon Democrat voting against good progressive jurists, it’s a lot easier to paint a reason to vote someone out then.
You also interpreted my characterization of the Senate a lot more harshly than I intended. I do not believe the Senate is regressive or ignorant. I do believe that with a body focused just on this there is potential to really learn about the nominees and Councilors take this aspect of the job very seriously. I’m not convinced the MA Senate would be obstructionist and I actually doubt they would elevate to the art form that the federal Senate has. What I said is that the possibility exists to infuse politics which I would rather not risk. The GC has nothing else to hold over the Governor since the Governor runs the GC. Yes, a Councilor might vote against a qualified nominee for a stupid reason, but so might a Senator. Who gets elected is not a fault of the system and I categorically reject that one is easier than the other. We’ll see about Devaney. She survived last time by getting a plurality in a 3-way race. One of those challengers is trying again this time and it’s just the two of them. Incumbents have an inherent advantage in just about any office so again not getting someone out is hardly a problem with the system, unless you advocate term limits, which I don’t. As the Declaration implies it is not wise to alter or abolish a form of government for “light and transient” causes which is so far all I’ve heard. This isn’t just some random agency or even cabinet department that you legislatively revamp from time to time to fit current needs. This is a branch of the government which we should no more throw overboard than we would the courts, the legislature, or the elected executive officers. Again unless you propose to abolish the Speakership based on the record of those people getting into criminal trouble, the idea of abolishing the GC because its members are embarrassing holds no water.
Which, again, I have already shown how politics was infused in a grossly partisan and ignorant way. Devaney trying to score some points with the Armenian community in Watertown, and the tea party Councilor being a tea party Councilor, and I doubt someone as regressive as her could’ve been elected to another office.
Here is a quote from Cassie’s own website about how she is bragging about politicizing her appointments to the Parole Board:
That’s the kind of generic, tough on crime, low on information and concern for due process kind of statements Chicago area judges regularly show on TV during election season. To me the GC brings out the worst elements of judicial elections in other states. It’s despicable. It’s also funny that we require lawyers to be Attorney Generals, generally elect lawyers to State Senate and the Secretary of State’s office, but do not require qualified attorneys to sit on the Governor’s Council. Take a look at these two knuckleheads and see if they are truly the cream of the crop.
You’re quote of the Declaration is also insightful, since I am sure the Founder’s would want us to make government more transparent, efficient, and accountable. They would also favor eliminating holdovers from Royal rule, and a simplified system of checks and balances. The bicameral legislature and three branches work out fine at the federal level, and I bet they would be befuddled by our tricameral legislature. The GC has less authority and less purpose than the House of Lords.
I encourage you to run for the position, you might be surprised if you win without exerting much effort, and you will be even more surprised that 9 out of 10 voters you talk to will have no idea that it exists or what it’s function is.
I guess I’m not being very clear. I did not mean a vote would never be politicized. I meant that they could not be held up, blocked, etc. by not even acting on them. The GC cannot say we won’t even bring it to a vote unless you support bill X. The GC does not have a Speaker or President who calls the shots. The statement you quoted can easily be made by a legislator. (Although, honestly, that statement doesn’t strike me as an entirely bad one on the merits anyway.) There are in fact good arguments for NOT requiring attorneys to be Councilors. Attorneys end up practicing in front of the judges they vote on which could be awkward at best and conflicting at worst. I have called for more transparency, accountability, and activity to make them better known. Remember, John Adams who helped edit the Declaration and as I mentioned earlier advocated for independence very early left the Council structurally in place. Bottom line is something has to be very broke before I advocate doing away with a branch of government and the reasons you have offered, especially behavior of incumbents, don’t cut it.
I have provided evidence, that you seem to dismiss, of the Governor’s Council regularly misbehaving and abusing what limited power it has. We want to add to that? One of the strongest defenders of the Council has also abused his position. He also quoted Adams.
The thing is, Adam’s Constitution is imperfect. It had a state religion for one, preserving parish taxes, and no individual right to religious liberty. The Governor’s Council was also tasked with succeeding to the Governorship for a time, which was a disaster, and was never intended to have the strict duty of just performing judicial reviews but had other duties that were taken away from it after further patronage reforms. I have heard no complaints about CT’s judges, or Senate and Speakers holding up nominees or nominations as they do in the US Senate-precisely because it happens far rarer than Governor’s Councilors seem to hold it up here.
CT doesn’t elect judges either, so that specter of a false alternative is entirely BS. So we are left with the choice of having the existing Judiciary Commitee , headed by an experience litigator and former prosecutor, and already tasked with overseeing every other aspect of the Commonwealth’s judicial system, with taking on some extra duties. Unlike any of the Governor’s Councilors, some of whom don’t have website, whose meetings are not televisied, and who never appear here on BMG or before voters- Will Brownsberger, like most State Senators, is a regular fixture in his community, these meetings are televised, and it would seem far easier to simply consolidate these functions into this committee and join the rest of the 48 states that thrive without Governor’s Councils, than attempt to reform a body that has already been reformed to the point of near irrelevance.
You have only conjecture on your side about what the Senate would do, I have several strong facts and cases that demonstrate the damage the Governor’s Council has already done.
…and see that as the worst possible way of choosing them. I would disagree about burden of proof. I say it falls on the party advocating change, especially one as significant as involving constitutional structure. I’ve said all I can. As Lord Acton said power tends to corrupt and the position I don’t think much matters. We have seen misbehaving in several offices and I’m not sure we will ever eliminate entirely. I see no compelling reason to change and I’m honestly having a hard time coming up with an example of what would persuade me. We could and should open up meetings, and frankly if you’re still parked in Chicago you have no idea how often we see them. I see my own and one from a neighboring district with some regularity (and my own is quite the improvement on her predecessor in that regard). You can provide all the examples of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance of office you want; that does NOT mean the office is the problem. I have suggested strengthening it could actually make that better as per NH and I stand by that. It’s a philosophical difference at this point.
Others pointed out the NH one sucks and is just as bad as ours, maybe worse since it has prevented new administrations from appointing cabinet officials of their own. So, I don’t see how your suggestions about reform along those lines is any different .
And it’s not philosophical, since I offer evidence and you offer nothing. It’s the same with the pot argument-I offer links and evidence and all you offer is “I don’t like it so it should be illegal” or “I like this vestige of government so it should stay”-but policy decisions should be made via evidence based and results based metrics and analyzing best practices of other states
I have shown that GC has deep institutional flaws, proposed an easy alternative that would be better , and haven’t seen any evidence that the calamities you have asserted those alternatives would cause would actually occur. In fact, I have shown that CT among other states, has a system that works pretty darn well without national and local political columnists regularly mocking it.
…and the people up there I talk to (Remember, I’ve worked NH politics.) are largely satisfied with it as an institution. Of course, they have more reason to know the body and the members better than we do and will vote individuals out for the same reason you vote out any other incumbent. You have shown that other models could work and if we were writing from scratch maybe we would do something different, but you have still shown no compelling reason IMO to CHANGE what we have. I in fact do prefer to separate these functions from ordinary legislation. Cabinet appointments could be denied by any body too. BTW, I never intended to PROVE that something else would be worse and I think you are looking for a level of evidence that requires knowing for sure how a hypothetical situation would turn out. I have only said, with some examples, that the problems you see with the GC COULD exist in other models so there’s nothing to change.
I’m not saying his Constitution was perfect for all time. The argument was made that the Council is a relic of royal government and had no place here, and that we fought against that. My pushback is that if that’s all it was good for Adams of all people would not have kept it. We weren’t fighting at that point to not have a state religion either. There are other reasons for abandoning that, but “we fought a revolution over it” isn’t one of them. Besides, FWIW, while you are correct on having a state religion you are incorrect on religious liberty, which as afforded to all in Article II of the MA BIll of Rights.
I would definitely uprate the first half and I appreciate the perspective. The second half I am, shall we say, less appreciative. I’ve known Leland for a few years and have worked with him, mostly in a Young Dems or DSC context. I disagree strongly with his call to abolish the GC, but he is a hard working progressive who has as much right as anyone to be in this race.
I can’t think of Leland Cheung without thinking of this. I’m sorry. I can’t take the guy seriously as a “progressive” when he ran for the Virginia House of Delegates in 2005.
It’s a Constitutional office just like the others. Treasurer is arguably redundant since the Legislature does the budget; by the LG hate logic, one could even make a case against the auditor.
Re: EC, its role is minor, but it’s also small. Not where I’d enact my reforms with my sweeping LG powers.
Does that make it sacred?
Any office that voters don’t understand should be eliminated.
But also not inherently useless. Some LGs have been more like Deputy Governors.
The Governor is the CEO of the commonwealth, and we hold the Governor accountable for the operation of government.
Currently, the Lieutenant Governor runs in the primary independent of the Governor. It’s very difficult to hold the Governor accountable for the actions of a Lieutenant Governor who is selected in an arranged marriage.
Positions of responsibility should be in the hands of people accountable to the Governor, and the Governor should use the Lieutenant Governor as he or she sees fit, which could range on a scale from a close confidant to staffing the Springfield office.
It should be noted that Leland has been endorsed by Governor’s Councilor Terrence Kennedy for his campaign for LG. Make of that what you will.
It should also be noted that Governor’s Councilor Bob Jubinville, one of few councilors I have a familiarity with, has made this statement regarding Leland’s comments:
The only constitutional duty of the office Mr. Cheung seeks is to be a member of the Governor’s Council and chair it when the Governor is not available.
In case Mr. Cheung hasn’t noticed, the citizens of the Commonwealth have not had a lieutenant governor in over a year and we have gotten along just fine, in my opinion. The Governor’s Council has not had to put up with a rubber stamp lieutenant governor who can break a tie vote. We members of the Council have been working hard and establishing ourselves as an independent body, free from the political process Mr. Cheung seems to want to impose on judicial nominations.
“Doing away with a lieutenant governor’s position makes more sense to me. I don’t understand how Mr. Cheung could put forward such a proposal as he has not even attended one Council meeting.
Chapter II of the Constituion of the Commonwealth states the role of the LG:
Article II. The governor, and in his absence the lieutenant governor, shall be president of the council, but shall have no vote in council: and the lieutenant governor shall always be a member of the council except when the chair of the governor shall be vacant.
Article III. Whenever the chair of the governor shall be vacant, by reason of his death, or absence from the commonwealth, or otherwise, the lieutenant governor, for the time being, shall, during such vacancy, perform all the duties incumbent upon the governor, and shall have and exercise all the powers and authorities, which by this constitution the governor is vested with, when personally present. [See Amendments, Arts. LV.]
I was pretty impressed with Charlie Shapiro (who is running against Marilyn Devaney for GC district 3 right now) when he spoke at our DTC meeting a couple of months back. He was asked directly if the GC should be abolished, and I thought he made a pretty good case to reform rather than abolish — his basic point was that the JNC and GC are designed to play distinct, but complementary roles — and he suggested a number of small, commonsense changes that didn’t seem like they would be too difficult to implement (and could, for the most part, be done unilaterally by the GC) that would greatly improve accessibility and transparency of the GC. Get solid candidates like Shapiro on the GC for a few years, and perhaps we’d have a different view of the body, and the role it plays in the Commonwealth.