This is a couple of days old, but still worth noting. As you may recall, there’s an ongoing dispute between the House and Senate regarding the joint committee structure, in which most legislation is vetted via committees composed of both House and Senate members. However, because there are more members of the House than the Senate, the committees are lopsided, and in effect give the House total control over whether or not legislation advances out of the committees. This is a bad system that, frankly, should have been changed years ago (only a couple of other states still use it), as I’ve already discussed.
Well, House Speaker Bob DeLeo – obviously the current system’s primary beneficiary – decided that the best way forward was to author a Boston Globe op-ed pretty much trashing the Senate. In DeLeo’s view, the Senate’s desire to have equal ability to bring legislation to the floor is “ill-advised, disruptive, and would be detrimental to the public interest,” and also “an impolitic and manufactured reaction to a non-existent problem and is a significant distraction at a time when the Commonwealth is at a critical juncture.” It goes on to offer a bunch of arguments in favor of the current system that are so weak as not to merit refuting. One Globe commenter got it right: “The guy who has used the current rules to claw his way to the top of the pile, and whose power is founded on those rules tells me everything is fine and we should leave the rules just as they are. Sure, why shouldn’t I believe him?”
Not surprisingly, DeLeo’s stink-bomb went over poorly in the Senate, which promptly voted 39-0 to move forward with plans to establish separate Senate committees for reviewing legislation. Commonwealth Magazine reports that “[o]ne senator said following the vote that the harsh tone of DeLeo’s op-ed pushed some senators who had been ambivalent about exercising the so-called ‘nuclear’ option to support today’s move toward establishing separate committees.” That reaction was about as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
DeLeo’s frankly childish op-ed is probably a good thing in the long run. It guaranteed that the Senate will move forward on a separate committee structure that will give it more say in moving legislation forward. And since the Senate is at the moment the far more progressive branch of the legislature, that’s good news as far as I’m concerned.
with his gambling push, and his move to extend his Speakership finished him off in my eyes. This is just more of the same for him. I don’t know if he’ll see a courtroom in his future, like his predecessors, but as far I’m concerned, he is no better than they were, and this is from a loyal Democrat.
…you may be a loyal Democrat, but the Speaker OTOH?:)
Indeed, yes the Speaker. Mr. DeLeo’s three convicted predecessors held the same title. I would include the naming of Mr. DeLeo as “unindicted co-conspirator” to the list.
Mr. DeLeo has given the finger to a great number of loyal Democrats, most especially when he publicly humiliated and embarrassed another loyal Democrat, Deval Patrick — who also happened to be the sitting governor — when Mr. Patrick offered his bold and courageous plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and use the resulting increased revenue to put the MBTA on a path towards sustainability.
I find it interesting how you fervently claimed that Mr. DeLeo had no relationship to the Massachusetts Democratic Party in other conversations here — to the extent that his actions effectively render that organization irrelevant to state governance. Yet you defend him here. Loyalty and respect is a two-way street.
And yet you still suggest we loyal Democrats owe him ANYTHING after he has seized the office he holds for as long as he wants it? I think not. Not for this lifelong loyal Democrat.
I am also a loyal Democrat — and I am most definitely NOT a member of the “Bob DeLeo Party”.
The previous commenter identified himself as a loyal Democrat, which I’m sure he is. Maybe you misinterpreted me. When I said “the Speaker OTOH?” I was trying to maybe too cutely question the Speaker’s party loyalty for among other things the reasons you cite. In other words, “I’m sure you are a loyal Democrat, but the real question is – is the Speaker.” I’m going to assume you misunderstood me this time so my apologies for not being clear.
Sorry, I misread your comment.
I agree with that the senate needs more of a say, but now bills might have to go through two separate committees and hearings to make it to the governors desk. Senate Committee[Hearing]–>Senate —->House Committee —->House[Hearing] —Governor
Before it was —Joint Committee —> Senate —> House —>Governor
Now things will never get passed…
What has changed however is that advocates will have an opportunity to make their case independently of the Speaker, using the legislative process.
Some bills that never would get out of committee before would have a debate and vote in the Senate. And then (at least theoretically) it would become more difficult for the House just to say they will just ignore it. A lot might depend on how much media exposure and public pressure there is for such bills.
You said it better.
this eventuality was a reason DeLeo canceled his term limits.
My own reps defended him to me. Said they believed it when he said that he was doing this because Beacon Hill didn’t need a new speaker along with a new governor and new senate president. Said it wasn’t a power grab. Needless to say, I don’t know for sure his reasoning, but I have seriously doubt DeLeo’s altruism.
I hope the Joint Committee structure doesn’t collapse. Having sat on the Joint Committee of the Judiciary, I can attest to the often heart-wrenching and courageous testimony of citizens who have appeared to testify in support of bills such as the anti-trafficking legislation and extending the statute of limitations for rape, and other important issues. It would be cruel to require such persons (many who traveled great distance and waited hours in overheated committee hearing rooms) to do everything twice. A simple tweak will solve this: the House and Senate should adopt a joint rule that allows by unanimous motion of their respective members on any joint committee to discharge any pending committee bill to their respective body in the General Court. All the Senators can pull a bill and send it to the Senate when they feel the matter is ripe for consideration by the Senate. Same for the House. This extraordinary referral could occur even before formal hearing if the Members felt it warranted. (Keep in mind that most bills pending in Committees are refiles, so there’s already a large body of evidence and testimony regarding each that need not be repeated with each session.) This approach will respect the prerogatives of both House and Senate, and each still would need the concurrence of the other for ultimate enactment despite getting an early start on a particular bill. And the winners would be the citizens who are not inconvenienced by a requirement of parallel testimony. I hope my good friends the Speaker and the President will agree.
The whole point of adjusting the rules for joint committees is to prevent legislation from being bottled up when a *majority* of the Senate wants to move it forward. Your proposal simply shifts the ability to bottle things up from the House to the Senate minority party (currently the GOP). Senator Rosenberg has already made a perfectly sensible reform proposal that keeps the joint committees intact. If DeLeo isn’t going to play ball, it seems pretty clear that the Senate will move forward with its own committee structure. I agree with you that that will entail some cost, but the cost of the current system is already far too high.
Just so I’m clear on this way-inside-baseballish stuff, your Joint Rules proposal on separate House-Senate action differs from the Joint Rules proposal that the Senate made in February primarily in that:
your proposal would require a unanimous vote by either the Senate or House members of a Joint Committee in order for a bill to move out of the Joint Committee, whereas the Senate proposal would require a majority vote by either the Senate or House members.
Do I have that right? Thanks.
Yep. The unanimous consent of either House or Senate ensures that GOP members have a say and that the matter truly is one that is ripe for discussion in the separate chambers of the General Court. Plus, the majority discharge proposed by the Senate doesn’t seem to have traction so it’s time to change up the proposal for the leadership to stop talking in circles.
for Republicans?
…they would elect more Republicans.
On the other hand, we go to the trouble of electing 40 senators, and I want them to be able to act independently of the House. Otherwise, why bother electing senators?
I think lots of good things that end up dispatched with a study order (as directed by the Speaker) might actually move out of a Senate committee and onto the floor. I support this effort and commend the Senate for breaking this bizarre system.
…they would elect more Republicans.
On the other hand, we go to the trouble of electing 40 senators, and I want them to be able to act independently of the House. Otherwise, why bother electing senators?
I think lots of good things that end up dispatched with a study order (as directed by the Speaker) might actually move out of a Senate committee and onto the floor. I support this effort and commend the Senate for breaking this bizarre system.
The Senate proposal allows either branch to give a bill a favorable report by a Joint Committee. Your proposal, by contrast, allows either branch to discharge a bill from a Joint Committee.
So let’s say the Senate uses its power under your version to discharge a bill from a Joint Committee, and then passes it and sends it to the House? I wonder if the House would regard the bill as never having received a favorable report from a Joint Committee and just send the bill back to the Joint Committee from which the Senate had discharged it?
To put the question another way, under your proposal, would the discharge of the bill by the Senate amount to the first reading of the bill?
Not that there’s anything wrong with it…
Sorry, that prior post was intended for mark-bail’s witty comment. So much for my witty repartee. Yes, this approach allows mere discharge and not favorable report. But upon mere discharge by this extraordinary motion by the Senate, for example, a bill would move to the Senate for debate and possible enactment. If enacted by the Senate, it has first reading status in the House. The House likely would wait for a report from the Joint Committee before acting. But see how the dynamics can change? Pick a bill from the thousands pending in Committee. If enacted by either House or Senate, that bill loses all anonymity in the Committee process. So harder to ignore. But respectful of the co-equal power of the House (or Senate) to disregard the fervor from the other side of the building.
This is a really crybaby attitude the MassGOP has. The whining makes me opposed to ever voting for a Republican, even if they run against Dems I’d be happy to make walk the plank.
Giving the GOP more representation than they were elected to is extremely undemocratic, and frankly, insulting to the voters.
Crybaby? Whining? The GOP has seats in the House and Senate last time I checked. If the minority Members are willing to concur in discharge to their respective side of the General Court, then the matter truly is ripe for extraordinary consideration. But we get outvoted all the time, so I’ll just watch the majority party figure this out. In the words of GW, they’re doing a heckuva job on the issue to date.
The Massachusetts GOP already has as many seats “at the table” as Massachusetts voters want it to have.
In the last seven years, we’ve all watched the national GOP bully its way into the dining room, smash the china, and throw the food at each other — and then sanctimoniously claim that the food wasn’t fit to eat anyway, because they dislike the chef. We’ve all watched the phone-cam video of the chef deflecting a flying pork chop onto the floor, characterized by Faux News as “both sides participating in the fracas”.
If the MA GOP wants more seats at the table, it must show Massachusetts voters that it is nothing like its national organization. The current MA house leadership is steam-rolling its particular brand of governance across Democrats, Republicans, and unenrolled voters, and in so doing has created a golden opportunity for a new generation of candidates to transform the Massachusetts political landscape. That won’t happen with stale ideas, stale slogans, and stale tactics.
Perhaps a more successful approach might be to put forward populist and progressive ideas beyond “no new taxes” promoted by articulate and reasonable candidates such as yourself and win back those seats at the table.
…with their support of DeLeo?
And there is no tactic staler than smearing local GOP candidates. That would be like me smearing local Dems as kleptocrats and bribe takers because a Democrat was caught with tin foil blocks of cash in his House office, or taking millions of dollars in speaking fees and donations from legally banned bundlers and to a self-glorifying ‘foundation’. Why, our local leaders are of the calibre of Sen. Wilkerson!
The shameful fact that it is Mr. DeLeo (and by implication Massachusetts Democrats) demanding “no new taxes” is my point.
There is nothing “stale” about emphasizing the brand chosen by local GOP candidates. The very fact that you characterize that emphasis as a “smear” demonstrates my point. I did not compare local GOP candidates with one official. The fact is that it is the entire national GOP organization that has been doing this since at least as long as Barack Obama has been president.
The time is ripe for a new generation of candidates who combine progressive social values, realism about sustainable practices in the twenty-first century, and Warren-style populist economic principles.
That new generation has the opportunity to dominate Massachusetts for decades to come. It has the opportunity to “go viral” from Massachusetts and dominate the national scene for decades to come. Elizabeth Warren is already leading the way in Washington.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and politics is no exception. Mr. DeLeo has planted the seeds of his own demise, and someone will harvest the resulting crop. I would think that if the MA GOP wants to resuscitate itself, it would eagerly and aggressively pursue this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
The opportunity is there, and it is up to the GOP to seize it.
it was Rosenberg who ended any chance of changes to the rules when he decided to stir up trouble on social media in the middle of a conference committee on rules. That’s a rookie mistake.
only if made by somebody who simply wants to play the legislative game as it currently works (or doesn’t).
Not a mistake of any kind if made by somebody who wants a new legislative process that restores balance between the two chambers.
…you sometimes have to raise a ruckus on the outside. I still wonder about your connections to DeLeo, since once again you pounce to defend him on his ways.
a rookie mistake. That’s rich.
He’s been on Beacon Hill longer than Bob Deleo. (And I’m not talking about the bassist for the Stone Temple Pilots).
Perhaps hesterprynne was referring to his role as President.
Playing rhythm guitar in a studio band is way different from being the front-man on a stadium tour.