We’ve had a couple of posts on this topic already, notably from the excellent hesterprynne, but today’s Globe story on the ongoing wrangling between the House and Senate over the “joint committee” structure – in which most legislation is considered by a single committee made up of both Senate and House members – makes another brief mention seem appropriate. The basic problem is that because the House has more members than the Senate, the joint committees have more House members than they do Senate members, which means that the House has control over what legislation gets discharged from committee.
A bit more info, from the Globe story:
At issue is concern that Senate bills are not getting a fair shake under Beacon Hill’s system of joint House-Senate committees, dominated by House members, with jurisdiction over everything from education to labor to health care…. [T]he House, which is the larger chamber, has a majority of the members on the joint committees and effectively controls the flow of legislation. And in recent years, long-simmering Senate frustration with the power imbalance has come to a boil….
The proposed fix: allow Senate members on joint committees to push Senate bills out of committee and onto the Senate floor. House members would have the same power to discharge legislation that emanated from their chamber…. But [House Speaker Bob] DeLeo labeled the proposal a “nonstarter” last month.
So, there it is. Speaker-for-life Bob DeLeo likes having total control over the flow of legislation and doesn’t see why he should have to cede any of that power. Senate President Rosenberg, understandably, doesn’t think that’s such a great system.
I frankly cannot see any rational argument in favor of the system as it currently exists. There’s no reason why one chamber should cede that much power to the other; what’s amazing is that it’s gone on as long as it has.
So bravo to Senator Rosenberg for standing his ground. Whether some compromise within the joint committee system can be reached, or whether the Senate simply withdraws from the system and sets up its own committees (the so-called “nuclear option,” though it’s not really that nuclear), something needs to change. Count me as squarely with the Senate on this one.
Is there a fix besides having parallel committees?
I read the article yesterday and am recalling from memory, but I believe the proposal is to keep the committees as is but change the rules so that, say, the Senate can take up a bill with only a majority of the Senate members of the committee voting to do so. Essentially gets rid of the current situation where the House members can kill anything.
For instance: Joint hearings. If no hearing held by date x on a bill that originates in the Senate, the Senate members of the committee are automatically constituted the Senate committee on the bill and can decide whether to hold own hearing and report to the Senate. If there is a hearing by date x but no committee report, the Senate committee can report to the Senate.
Etc.
So there could be a way forward that even preserves the current process if the House plays fair, but with an escape hatch if it doesn’t.
DeLeo stayed in as Speaker? To prevent parity with the Senate?
is dispensable when he wants to get something to the Governor’s desk in a hurry.
Consider these examples of legislation that did not go through the Committee process that were nevertheless included in supplemental budget that the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed last week (these examples are just the ones pertaining to the gambling industry).
Gambling losses are tax deductible, up to the amount of gambling winnings (Section 12)
Threshold for which casinos must provide W-2 forms for slot machine winnings is increased from $600 to $1200 (Section 14).
The Race Horse Development Fund (where some casino revenues will go) may be used to pay for the costs of leasing Suffolk Downs, in order to keep Suffolk Downs open for horseracing and simulcasting for another 15 months (Sections 31 to 35 and Section 58).
problem with the legislative process in addition to the House and Senate parity problem. The chairs of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees, which are stand-alone and not joint committees, seem to have disproportionate power to bottle up legislation. An awful lot of bills get approved by joint committees and then go on to the Ways and Means Committees, where they’re left to die.
Also, the chairs of the Ways and Means Committees appear to have almost absolute authority over which amendments will live or die — or even get debated — during the budget deliberations on the House and Senate floors. While this “streamlined” process may have shortened the time for budget debates and made the whole thing more efficient, it seems to have made the budget process less transparent and accountable than it used to be.
1. Why do you mock DeLeo for seeing to it the House the same term limit rules as the seante prez?
2.. Can you think of any possible valid reason why Speaker DeLeo would favor this?
3. If DeLeo did support it can you think of any possible valid reason why at least 161 members of the House would still vote for this?
4. If DeLeo did support this for how long after would he remain as Speaker?
5. Are you familiar with the term “motion to cavte the chair”?
Thta’s “vacate” the chair. Vacate.
As you were.
.
81 members needed to vacate the chair.
You can’t say you’re train of thought/who cares about typos and then have three correcting posts. Well I guess you can but it makes you look bad.
I thought I was going to learn some obscure parliamentary thing about cavteing the chair.
Cavate….like caveat…beware the chair…
So I’m old and had Latin in a public high school. Shoot me.
to retract your correction?