Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

MA Senate Shoots Down Amendment Prohibiting the Use of Public Funds for the Olympics

By

Budget season has been upon us, and the MA Senate has been going through a long list of amendments.

Yesterday, the Senate took on Bob Hedlund (R-Weymouth)’s amendment to prohibit the use of public funding for the Olympics.

SECTION XX. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, and except as provided in subsection (b), no state agency, authority, or other entity created by the General Court, shall expend any state funds, incur any liability, indebtedness or obligation, directly or indirectly, by guaranty, indemnification agreement, bond undertaking or otherwise to procure, host, aid, further or remediate the effects of, the 2024 Olympics.

(b) Because efficient transportation is essential to the economy of the state, and because efficient transportation is essential to the success of the 2024 Olympics, nothing in this section shall prevent any state agency, authority, or other entity created by the General Court, from spending state funds, incurring liabilities and obligations, or entering into other agreements for the purpose of the repair, maintenance, construction and operation of the state’s transportation system including, without limitation, roads, bridges, tunnels, rail lines, buses, boats and other means of transportation, even if such expenditures may also facilitate procuring, hosting, aiding, furthering, or remediating the effects of, the 2024 Olympics.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any state agency, authority, or other entity created by the General Court, from expending the proceeds of, or servicing the debt created by, bonds authorized and issued, or performing contracts entered into, before the effective date of this section, even if they relate to procuring, hosting, aiding, furthering or remediating the effects of the 2024 Olympics.

(d) The term “authority,” as used in this section, shall have the meaning given to it in section 39 of chapter 3 of the General Laws.

The amendment mimics the text of Evan Falchuk’s statewide ballot initiative.

MA legislators have said again and again that there will be no public funds used for the Olympics. They had the chance to put that in writing yesterday. But, instead, the Senate voted the amendment down: 17 yes vs. 22 no.

Roll Call Olympics

All six Republicans in the Senate voted for Hedlund’s amendment. Senate Democrats voted against it 2:1 (22 to 11).

I decided to look up the Democratic YES votes on the Progressive Massachusetts 2013-2014 scorecard, and they’re an interesting mix.

You have progressive champions Jamie Eldridge of Acton and Pat Jehlen of Somerville, the first (96%) and third (89%) most progressive senators by the scorecard. (When I first saw the roll call, my first thought was “I knew Jamie and Pat wouldn’t let me down.”) Mark Montigny of New Bedford had the sixth most progressive voting record last year with a 70%.

Then you have three moderate Democrats: Ben Downing of Pittsfield (59%), Jennifer Flanagan of Leominster (48%), and Joan Lovely of Salem (48%).

And then you have four conservative Democrats: Michael Moore of Millbury (26%), Kathleen O’Connor Ives of Newburyport (19%), Michael Rush of Boston (33%), and James Timilty of Walpole (22%).

Anne Gobi of Spencer is new, and I don’t know her record so far.

Earlier in the week, the Senate passed a largely meaningless amendment on the use of public funds for the Olympics. That amendment said that any public funding for the Olympics (with the exception of analysis and due diligence) would have to be approved by the legislature. No public funding unless the legislature says so is not a particularly bold statement.

Although there are many reasons to oppose Boston’s Olympic bid, one of the most common concerns is that the Olympics will suck up large sums from the public purse, diverting money away from better uses. The Senate’s vote last night shows that people are right to be concerned.

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …there are probably all kinds of scenarios that if you try to be too absolute someone will claim that subsection a was violated; there will be various interpretations trying to draw a bright line where one doesn’t and can’t exist.

  2. I decided to look up the Democratic NO votes on the Progressive Massachusetts 2013-2014 scorecard, and they’re an interesting mix.

    Should this read “I decided to look up the Democratic YES votes on the Progressive Massachusetts 2013-2014 scorecard, and they’re an interesting mix.”?

    • Yes, that’s what I meant. I got confused by thinking of those who said “NO” to public funding. Thanks for the catch!

  4. In support of the idea that the amendment the Senate did adopt is a vote of no confidence in Boston 2024 and therefore meaningful. Cross-posted here.

    In its budget debate last week the Senate considered two amendments restricting public financial support for the 2024 Olympics. The Senators adopted one of the amendments on a voice vote and rejected the other in a close roll-call vote (no 22, yes 17).

    Many of my fellow Olympics skeptics are vexed at the 22 Senators who voted “no” on the roll-call vote, arguing that in doing so they turned their backs on a meaningful opportunity to ensure that no public money will be spent on the Olympics. (That the text of the rejected amendment was the same language that noted Olympics opponent Evan Falchuk and the United Independent Party are endeavoring to place on the next statewide ballot contributes to the irritation.) The amendment that the Senate did adopt, to the extent that it is even mentioned, is written off as meaningless. You can find the amendments here.

    I have a different view: the amendment the Senate adopted prohibits state agencies, as well as cities and towns, from spending any money to procure or host the Olympics unless the Legislature passes a bill specifically authorizing that spending and unless at least one public hearing is held before any such bill is passed.

    Now, one could say — and my fellow skeptics do say — that nothing in the amendment keeps the Legislature from passing an Olympics-funding bill. But inherent in the lawmaking business is that a Legislature cannot constrain what legislation it may or may not pass in the future. The nature of plenary power is that one of the few things a plenary body is unable to do is to make a binding promise.

    So while my fellow skeptics may be very unhappy that Senate did not go farther, the folks at Boston 2024 must certainly be even more unhappy that the Senate gave them this vote of no confidence. Seems to me that there’s considerable value in getting the House (which dodged the issue entirely in its budget debate) to agree to this provision and to get Governor Baker to sign it into law.

    .

    • There is another small protection against spending by state agencies on the Olympics. Chapter 29, section 66 of the MGL provides for a $1000 fine or a year in jail for any state employee who expends money that has not been appropriated by the legislature and signed into law by the Gov. I don’t think there have been any prosecutions for violating this provision although I recall some tough talk from both chambers during the early part of the Weld administration. In short, there can be no state spending on the Olympics unless and until directly authorized by appropriation.

      The prohibition on unauthorized spending does not, and should not (IMO), prohibit executive branch employees from meeting with and discussing the Olympic bid with B2024, just as it does not prohibit them from meeting with NoBoston.

      HP’s point here:
      But inherent in the lawmaking business is that a Legislature cannot constrain what legislation it may or may not pass in the future. The nature of plenary power is that one of the few things a plenary body is unable to do is to make a binding promise.
      is the most important reason not to sweat what happens in this GA bill as it relates to the Olympics. A future legislature can undo any prohibitions enacted by the current one.

      A further note on the inside Senate game. Members can vote against the leadership, usually by explaining privately they will do so. Do it too many times and you are seen as not part of the team. Considering HP’s very astute commentary and as Dias-Chang and Forry represent areas that would be significantly impacted by hosting, there was no particular benefit to them for voting for the additional amendment.

Archives