First, when you’ve got left (BMG), right (the Herald), and center (well, maybe center-left) (the Globe) agreeing on an issue, there’s probably a decent chance that they’ve got a point. In fact, just about the only people in Massachusetts who seem to think that repealing term limits for the Speaker is a good idea are the Speaker himself and just over 100 other House members, who just rejected an amendment that would have put the term limit back into the House rules. [UPDATE: the entire rules package has just been adopted, and the Speaker’s term limits are no more.]
Early reports indicate that only 11 Democrats had the gumption to vote in favor of the amendment (Reps. Hecht, Ayers, Provost, Dwyer, Timilty, Rosa, Zlotnik, DiZoglio, Dinatale, Dykema, and John Rogers, per the Herald’s Matt Stout), and that of them, only Rep. Hecht spoke on the floor in favor of its adoption. Kudos to those brave 11 souls (especially Jon Hecht), who no doubt will feel the wrath of DeLeo brought down upon them in the form of crappy offices and committee assignments.
Second, to add insult to injury, a number of the House’s court officers and legislators apparently aren’t familiar enough with their own rules to realize that a caucus meeting is open to the public until closed by a vote of the members. Which results in embarrassments like this:
Two State House reporters clashed with Beacon Hill court officers before Democrats voted to close a caucus meeting where they discussed ending term limits for the office of House speaker….
The two reporters involved, the author [our own Garrett Quinn] and one from the State House News Service [Gintautas Dumcius], were initially confronted by a confused court officer and a handful of legislators that thought they had to leave.
The reporters informed them that House rules state that the meeting is open until it is voted closed by a majority of members present.
Two additional court officers confronted the reporters moments later before the start of the meeting and asked them to leave. When the reporters calmly repeated the rules to them the lead court officer grew increasingly agitated and grabbed the arms of both reporters before swearing at them.
“Am I going to have to have you escorted out of the f***ing building? I am talking! Quiet! Are you telling me you’re not going to leave?” said the officer, raising his voice.
The visibly agitated court officer continued to confront the reporters and grab their arms as if trying to move them out of the room.
“Why can’t you be a f***ing gentleman?” said the officer while loudly asking them to leave the room.
Here’s the kicker:
Both court officers involved in the confrontation declined to identify themselves when asked by the two reporters.
WTF. It hardly needs to be said that (a) court officers have no business refusing to identify themselves in circumstances like these; and (b) the reporters involved are owed an apology by the officers, and by the Speaker’s office. Naturally, the members who were present unanimously voted to close the caucus, at which point the reporters left on their own.
In sum, today the Massachusetts House of Representatives held an important debate that was closed to the public, roughed up a couple of reporters who were trying to cover it, and then voted to repeal term limits for the Speaker which had been put in place at the instigation of that very same Speaker as a needed reform to restore trust in government and guarantee the flow of fresh ideas.
Yeah, I’d call that a bad day.
…I hope you ask the various legislators (…eldridge….cough…cough…) who post here two questions:
Did you vote to close the caucus
Why did your vote to end term limits?
(And what kind of world is is when John Rogers is a progressive portrait in courage?)
n/t
.
Seriously, this is a legislature radically limiting the scope of things it can do by abusing public trust.
Graduated income tax? Carbon tax? Don’t make me laugh.
Eldridge is of course a senator, and has no say in the House speaker’s term limits.
and we need it yesterday.
Open Meeting laws would dramatically change the way our state house operates for the better, ending behind-closed-doors meetings and the increasing tendency to hide the business of government.
(Another exhibit from the past couple days: The House voted to change its rules so cameras are no longer allowed to be used in session, formal or otherwise.)
Does the prohibition on cameras also in clude the feed? Does it include the House photographer? Or is the prohibition only directed at media?
Fishing through https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2015 and this year’s amendments, I can’t find this new rule that you cite re House session photography. So far as I gather (rules 2 and 81), the photography is at the Speaker’s discretion. It’s been this way for several years now. Jim Lyons offered and withdrew an amendment (39) to strike out that language. (I don’t know if you’re referring to that -?)
Right in the first graph. See
2. The Speaker shall preserve decorum and order in the House Chamber. While in the House Chamber, members, staff and guests shall be required to dress in proper and appropriate attire and be courteous and professional when using electronic devices. Members, staff and guests shall not take photographs or videos of, or in, the House Chamber during formal or informal sessions. The use of audio-visual aids including, without limitation, videos, computers, posters, displays or charts shall be permitted only upon approval of the Speaker. The Speaker also may speak to points of order in preference to other members; and shall decide all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House. [2.] (2.) [With regard to appeals, see Rule 77.]
Every smart phone comes with a tolerable photo sensor. Some are even outstanding.
They are closing the empty barn’s door in something of a funny panic you see when there is a high likelihood of a successful court challenge.
It’s like the time some kid conductor asked me if I had permission to take pics of the South Station rail platforms. I demurred and then asked the people over by the baggage handler shack if they minded me taking a few pics.
They said.. “No.. go ahead.” and thus I had ‘permission’. We really need a peruke comeback.
We also need the Public Records Act to apply to our friends in the legislature. Currently, it applies as follows, per 950 CMR 32.00:
In my experience in the Executive Branch, a little sunshine can be a very good thing. Anyone in the legislature have the spine to take this one on this session?
… in Massachusetts … and you should be, too. We will pay a price for this arrogance.
There are 34 republicans in the house. What’s the worst that can happen from something like this? The Republicans elect numbers 35 and 36?
Stuff like this may be why more and more people are registering unenrolled, but it’s not putting anyone’s feet to the fire in the legislature. At worst it makes it harder for Democrats to win the Corner Office, but that’s not keeping the House Leadership up late at night.
Yes, stuff like this is why more and more people are registering unenrolled and it’s the stuff that gets guys like Scott Brown elected. Those are angry voters, angry with government. I’d wager that there are a lot more than one or two seats in “purple” districts that are just a few degrees from going Red. Once the dam breaks…..
I think this is a good government issue, not a “how do Democrats keep their large majority” issue.
Particularly if that large majority isn’t particularly progressive and doesn’t operate in a manner conducive to good government. Republicans going from 36-50 wouldn’t be the end of the world, and frankly might be what the progressive caucus needs to finally be a kingmaker.
I agree with you – this is a good government issue. But wanting good government and getting it are two very different things. My previous comment reflected on why we’re not getting it.
The legislature has to be able to be held accountable for bad government in the first place if we want to get good government — and right now there are few carrots and almost no sticks to us end the backroom deal making that’s running our government today.
Almost no one in the legislature’s getting voted out decisions that are being made closed doors — even as that’s exactly the sort of thing that’s leading to the Charlie Bakers and Scott Browns of the world, and the 16 years of Republican Governors who came before them.
Finally — I’m not necessarily concerned with keeping a democratic majority as large as it is today. If a smaller but still strong democratic majority means a more liberal democratic majority, then I’m fine with the tent shrinking. The past 6 years have taught me that “more and better” isn’t always better, and that “better and enough” is the sweet spot we should all be looking for.
Ultimately this was a roll call so we can see who voted for the change and who didn’t. The average voter isn’t going to be very aware of this unless we make it so, and even then I think we would have to frame it as part of a larger theme or pattern.
as the weakened Democrats face off against a popular new Governor who is determined to not raise taxes and solve all of our fiscal problems by cutting, cutting, cutting services for the poor, disabled and children.
And I would fully support him in that position. Why the hell should we pay more taxes if we know that it will primarily be used to provide employment to the various branches of the DeLeo family?
I am not necessarily opposed to taxes, but I am opposed to tax money being pissed away on corruption. The whole Probation Dept trial, and the complete non-response to it by the legislature, pretty much makes clear that this legislature will use increased tax revenues in a corrupt manner.
In my view these things are directly linked. A progressive agenda REQUIRES good government. You can’t shrug off the lack of good government, say “oh well” and then blame the setbacks to the progressive agenda on the Governor. That’s just a BS cop-out.
of your comments, centralmassdad, but it would be a mistake to hold that a tax increase would be “will primarily be used to provide employment to the various branches of the DeLeo family?” I am after all the poster who repeated the DeLeo patronage grab.
I think the Commonwealth needs new revenues, but we should not be asked to tolerate the patronage moves of the DeLeo’s of the world.
Comparing that list of 11 with the Progressive Massachusetts scorecard from 2013 (most recent year available) has led me to conclude that Jonathan Hecht and Denise Provost are the only legitimately progressive members of the whole MA House.
some campaign money. Anyone else?
…who could use his own lesson in how to be a f***en gentleman:)
Hopefully Kim Jon DeLeo gets a real progressive challenger in his next election, or any challenge.
If the progressive caucus couldn’t have the courage or the votes to stick together and stop the end of term limits, it won’t be able to stop DeLeo from getting re-elected. Both of which are now fait accompli.
The key thing is to figure out how to stop DeLeo from getting another term after the next one, we do have some time and some wiggle room to figure out who the next ones in line are and find a better candidate who could pass them. Diana DiZoglio and Timilty voted against term limits, both are not liberals by our standards, but they took a gutsy vote in favor of making the house more small-d democratic. They might be the kind of bridge between the ward heeler faction and the progressives that could oust DeLeo while making the House closer to the Senate.
It is what Clausewitz would call the schwerpunkt.
The main take away I got from poring over election data I found yesterday was the role of surprisingly low turnout.
We owe our continued good fortune of a DeLeo junta to around 5000 voters.
Winthrop alone has 40,000 residents. And the relevant precincts elsewhere are larger. But they are quite compact and probably winnable with a good ground game.
And if nothing else, the shift of focus there is sure to be a more useful way to discomfit him that lobbing spit balls from a blog.
I want to go explore Winthrop more and this is a good time of year. There are relics of an old coastal fort that had huge spigot mortars in the 1870s or so through the early 20th century.
You presume that the Speaker is unpopular within the broad population within his District.
You presume that term limits are a salient issue within the 19th Suffolk.
You assume that “new residents” are receptive to a progressive message, and:
You assume that progressives are capable of creating a competent ground game.
I don’t think that the political demographics of the District support that argument.
The low turnout numbers in District elections do not in and of themselves prove opposition to DeLeo; they merely reflect the absence of competent field working on behalf of anybody, and that is a Statewide problem for Democrats.
If I could presume I wouldn’t waste time on seeking ways to find out.
I also wouldn’t assume much on the utility of a progressive message either. That would just be a strange imposition.
And there is no way I would assume the current crop of progressives could make a competent ground game. I don’t think I could smoke enough weed fast enough to get to the plateau where I could make that assumption.
Hell, I’m fascinated by what might be learned by really finding out what IS there. To me it’s worthwhile purely as social research.
I generally favor finding things out as the essential first step of a modern data driven polity.
As to wild guesses, I’m betting there may be some discontent to work but it is going to be discovered by asking unaffiliated people what they care about, not by telling em what they should care about.
And it seems like a more useful way to rattle the guy’s cage than carping about his latest coup.
Field work would be interesting and it’s probably crap as well. Given what an insular and suspicious bunch we are, just figuring out how to engage us has got to be a challenge.
Last year I did a little bit of field research in the Nineteenth Suffolk in the context of some Suffolk County stuff.
What exists in the Northern tier of the County (Revere, Winthrop, Chelsea, and East Boston – and the non-yuppified sections of Charlestown) is a lot of unfocused populism. This manifests differently by municipality and neighborhood, but by and large good-government progressives fail the “cares about us” test; and hence have little credibility on the ground.
Speaking hypothetically, this could be addressed, but it would require major changes in progressive organizational cultures, which ain’t gonna happen.
If you think about it, the progressive ‘brand’ as defined by its self proclaimed adherents is a luxury thing when you are in some financial defensive crouch.
It’s a BMW being sold to people who can barely afford payments on a Civic or a KIA. Some are struggling to keep a 15 year old shitbox running.
I imagine you’d want to run on minimum wage raises, more responsive process management for the government elements the given community commonly encounters, astute elder care and assistance for old world people who have a higher regard for elders than is common here, astute career advice that doesn’t lead them down trendy rat holes is probably key.
Basic orientation to America is often valuable. I knew a posse of Iraqi POW’s who were dumped in Seattle.. Shiites who couldn’t go home.
They needed a hand just figuring out what the mail meant. “That’s called junk mail Hamoodi.. you can throw it away… this is a bill… it means they want money…” One guy was online and thought spam was the real e mail and real e mail was useless.
I soon became their pet American and go to guy and they were fiercely loyal and would thrash people they suspected of bothering me if I asked.. ( I never did). It was nice because I could see how eager they are to be part of this America thing and toss the old world religious nonsense.
Did the Iraqis develop their own leadership?
I ask because one thing many progressive activists ignore is their obligation to put themselves out of business.
To do otherwise is not empowering grassroots communities; it’s colonizing, administering, and eventually destroying them.
The shiites were heavy drunks. These were soldiers, mind you, who came up in a Baathist world. They were POWs from the first gulf war who were dumped in Saudi Arabia for a while before ending up here.
My friend, Saleh Al Tarbush was a truck driver from a family of Mesopotamian hat makers. He was pitifully uneducated. They were basically just dumped here, set up with apartments and given welfare checks. Saleh worked as a baggage handler at Seatac until 9/11.
They also had run ins with the law. Seattle is much more strict about brawling and assault in general than fight happy Boston and you get an automatic year in the can.
Saleh got mugged one night while drunk wandering in a bad neighborhood with lots of gambling cash. He got shot in the leg but pulled a knife and the assailant came off much worse.
It was self defense but it isn’t Boston so he pulled a year.
He had a Kurdish friend, Ali ,as well and Ali was very impressive. He was a skilled electrician and was pretty good at English and liked to have philosophical conversations. I was very impressed by him and what I’ve since learned about Kurds.
It was probably more like gradual awkward assimilation. They had social worker contacts, but the culture barriers were probably a handful.
I certainly wasn’t psyched to be their overseer and did what I could to empower them as it’s my practice anyway.
DeLeo’s district is actually more Revere than Winthrop.
I mean’t to indicate district. I looked at a bunch of numbers in the query I made and scrambled them.
the only term limit DeLeo might face is spelled “indictment.”
-don’t think there’s much truth to that one, but whatever.
I’m wondering, where’s the uproar over Byron Rushing going along with this? Wasn’t he a vocal critic of Finneran’s fiscal conservatism and tight control? I guess the $15Gs (or whatever the leadership stipend is) completely bought him off. Guy hasn’t done a thing in over a decade, yet not a word of criticism of him.
There is no evidence that giving the Speaker an unprecedented amount of power over the legislative body has any negative repercussions.
Ok, that may be just be unindicted snarkiness, but come on. The speaker has complete control over the House members and committee assignments, and now they have eliminated even the limits from Father Time himself.