Taking Beacon Hill by surprise, House Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey (D-Haverhill) announced his resignation from the House of Representatives last Wednesday, to take a position at the corporate lobbying firm ML Strategies in September.
Dempsey, a conservative Democrat who has overseen the drafting of several austerity budgets, was widely viewed as next in line for Speaker of the House. He also played a leading role last session in weakening the solar incentive bill and the omnibus energy bill, and sided with the big business group AIM on the Equal Pay bill, Noncompetes, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
One of ML Strategies’ clients is Wynn Casinos–perhaps a reason for a last minute addition to the FY18 budget allowing casinos to serve drinks until 4 a.m. Needless to say, Progressives in Massachusetts will not be missing him.
A New Way on Ways & Means?
Ways & Means is by far the most powerful committee. Any legislation that involves public money must go through both the W&M in both the House and Senate. In that space, W&M can—and sometimes does—change legislation, with zero transparency or democracy. Any policies that require funding can be rendered ineffective by W&M’s level of funding for it, too.
These Ways and Means Committees are not required under the Legislature’s rules to report out any bill that is referred there. Therefore the Committees are frequently graveyards.
And, yeah, Ways and Means Committees write the budget. As they say, whoever holds the purse strings holds the power.
Over the weekend, Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Mission Hill) was named the next chair of the committee. Sanchez represents one of the most progressive districts in the state. What does this mean for the committee?
In our scorecards for the last two legislative sessions (188th, 189th), Sanchez fared modestly better than Dempsey and Speaker DeLeo. Each case, the difference was a result of Sanchez standing up for the rights of undocumented residents. And unlike Dempsey, Sanchez is a co-sponsor of the Safe Communities Act.
However, beyond those votes, Sanchez has a history of voting in lockstep with the Speaker, right or wrong. And his name is missing on the list of co-sponsors of key bills this session–from the $15 minimum wage to paid family and medical leave to single payer health care to ending mandatory minimum sentences. And under his chairmanship of the Health Care Financing Committee, the House has not taken the necessary steps to improve the quality and reduce the cost of care. Last session, Sanchez as the House chair sent single-payer legislation to study.
How will Sanchez be as the new chairman of this most powerful committee? Will there be a new spirit of transparency, collaboration in this new tenure? We’ll find out.
With his ascension to this powerful position, the role of progressive organizers within his district–like the great activists at JP Progressives–becomes even more important to the state as a whole.
Stepping Stones and Musical Chairs
As noted above, the Ways & Means Chairmanship is often seen as a stepping stone to the Speaker’s office. Although the House has abolished term limits for the Speaker, DeLeo may ultimately choose to retire. And it’s important to make sure that the next Speaker has a progressive vision for the state.
A strong coalition can be built, as noted by Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan):
Now is the time for the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Women’s Caucus to be strong and united in our selection of the next speaker of the House. We should not do this individually; we should do this together so our voices are heard.
We couldn’t agree more. If the Progressive Caucus is to exist in more than name, then it should take on a more assertive role in shaping the direction of the State House.
Apparently, Speaker DeLeo doesn’t agree. In the committee shakeup that followed Sanchez’s promotion, DeLeo stripped Holmes of his vice chairmanship of the Joint Committee of Housing. Two years ago, DeLeo stripped Rep. Jonathan Hecht (D-Watertown) of a vice chairmanship after Hecht spoke out against abolishing term limits.
The centralization of power in the Speaker’s office has been a hurdle to the progressive legislation that would make Massachusetts live up to its liberal reputation.
If DeLeo stays at the helm for another four to five years, progressive legislators need a plan to push the Speaker for a bolder legislative agenda to invest in our schools and infrastructure, reduce inequality, reform our broken criminal justice system, model a transition to clean energy, protect and expand the rights of marginalized populations, and on and on. And if they don’t have a plan, then activists need to make them.
Four to five years is a long time. For persons suffering under injustice and insecurity, two is a long time, too.
But progressives, both inside and outside the State House, need to think long-term as well. The caucuses described by Rep. Holmes could place their support for the Next Speaker behind one person, and dramatically alter the future of progressive legislation. While the very rapid ascension of Sanchez to W/M chair puts him on an important stepping stone towards speakership, it is not by any means a fait accompli, and certainly the rank and file have the option of exercising their power for larger progressive goals.
This would take discipline, focus, and an ability to put the Common Good ahead of individual legislators’ narrow self interests—which too often are reduced to fears of conservatives’ wrath, and almost never liberals’ disappointments. It would be a glorious thing to see; there are moments of stepping up and changing the narrative—this is one of those for House Progressives (and every caucus whose aims have been stepped over for austerity budgets and corporate comforts).
At the very least, or, less inspiringly, come up with a key set of issue priorities, expectations, and rules reforms that the leading contenders for the next Speaker of the House would commit to.
Given that the House has already sought to water down or stop even very modest progressive policies in recent years, the stakes could not be higher.
AmberPaw says
Progressive Democrats voting as a block and taking the consequences is where change would have to stop. “They can tell me where to sit” yes – but not tell you what you stand for. Only guts and backbone will change the frozen in time, anti-democratic allegedly “Democrat majority” Massachusetts legislature. No real change will come without that kind of courage and that kind of pain. As I said before, I miss the “Rushing 17” and remember well reading lips in the gallery when the cameras were removed and the broadcasts were ended…hey! How about bringing those broadcasts to cable BACK? And outlawing budget discussions in Room 328 and rendering that those must occur ON THE FLOOR??
AmberPaw says
Ooops – I meant to type “…where change would have to START” and where it has been stopped….dunno if our editors can fix that in a comment.
jconway says
Holmes is exactly right that the members actually have the power-they just need to stick together and learn how to wield it.
TheBestDefense says
This could only have been written by somebody who does not know Sanchez nor spends any significant time under the Dome. Holmes is correct and deserves kudos for calling out DeLeo, who doubled down and lied. But the OP clearly has no clue about the nature of the House, the building of an oppositional force to a Speaker, or how to assemble a majority. I direct the writer to read about the McGee v. Keverian fight, the ascendence of the relatively progressive Flaherty and the Voke v. Finneran battle.
But it seems that an ideological decision was made by ProgMA. Sure, Barber, Decker and Garbelly score a hint higher than Sanchez but there is zero chance they are viable candidates to become Speaker. And Holmes, who the OP cites as a leader, scored LOWER than Dempsey did on the ProgMA ranking. Y’all need to get a grip on reality.
This is not a time for progressives to be stupid about the balance of power in the lege. Sanchez has good instincts and an electoral base that can back him or push him in the right direction.
AmberPaw says
Hey BestDefense – why not tell us all more about the McGee v. Keverian fight and the Voke v. Finneran fight. I was not in this state at that time and I think folks would read and ponder. I do know that I don’t “know” Sanchez and that he was not on my radar. But I will set three “data rodents” on him and watch him. Carefully. Now.
TheBestDefense says
A very good piece on Keverian v. McGee is in the CSM https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0927/092751.html
TheBestDefense says
Mike Ring’s piece on Finneran’s victory is still a worthy read http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N5/ring.5c.html
TheBestDefense says
The best way to understand the House is to go back two decades. I have tried three times to post the best piece written on the House but BMG seems to not allow it. Google the words McDonough, Keverian and commonwealth and you will find the core truth of MA politics.
hesterprynne says
If you email that link to blue@bluemassgroup.com, we’ll try to figure out why it’s not posting and correct the problem..
SomervilleTom says
I’ll take a whack . Perhaps you mean this Commonwealth piece from 2002?
hesterprynne says
Thanks to others besides Somerville Tom who sent this link along — it was mysteriously and unaccountably delayed by the WordPress authorities for a spell.