The timetable for debating the budget in the House is,in short, amendments due by Friday at 5, debate starts Monday 4/23, amendments pertaining to spending will be considered only in third reading (meaning that revenue amendments would be heard only in second reading — but there probably won’t be any of those).
below find a draft of the budget deliberations in the
4th edition of Lobbying on a Shoestring.
The House
After the Joint Hearings held with Senate W&M, House W&M writes a budget and reports it to the full House, usually in mid-April (and, under the rules, not later than the second Wednesday in May). Under House rules, the HWM budget must be available at least seven days before the day scheduled for House debate. (These rules can, of course, be suspended, as can any other rule).
House Version
The House budget generally follows the format of the Governor’s budget (described above). But both the House and Senate budgets typically contain much more detailed language to accompany the line items — limitations, restrictions, or con¬ditions under which funds can be spent.House Floor Action
On the House floor, the budget follows a procedure that is outlined in the House Rules, which of course, is subject to amendment on a moment’s notice. According to those rules at this writing (spring of 2018), members file their amendments to the budget within three days of the release of the House W&M budget. Debate is usually scheduled for 10 days after amendments are filed. During those 10 days the House Clerk and the House W&M staff jointly categorize all the amendments by subject matter – environment, child protection, local aid, etc. into a huge document to be posted on the legislative website before debate.At the same time, the House Ways and Means staff works with House Leadership to develop a draft consolidated amendment for each subject matter category listing all the amendments approved (and sometimes changed) by House leadership.
The day before the debate begins, the budget bill is ordered to a third reading, thus skipping over one opportunity to debate the thousand or so amendments.The debate during the third reading of the House budget does not take place on the House floor. In fact, “debate” as you might think of it, does not take place at all. Instead, House members must negotiate their amendments, subject matter by subject matter, with House W&M chair and staff in a private room outside the chamber.
From time to time, during the three days of budget deliberations, the Chair announces that those members interested in higher education (or human services, or the environment or local aid) should proceed to room 348 in ten minutes.Members who hope their amendments are included in the draft consolidated amendment proceed to room 348 and pick up one of the fat single spaced documents listing each amendment that has been approved by leadership, including any changes leadership may have made. Everyone crowds around the HW&M chair and staff asking for clarification and advocating for changes. Some legislators come out of the room to ask advice from lobbyists and advocates, and some march into the chamber to ask leadership to intervene on their behalf with W&M.
Eventually the HW&M staff pick up their notes and go back to their offices to make any approved changes to the draft consolidated amendment.
Sometimes hours or a day later, after further private negotiation with leadership, House W&M finalizes each consolidated amendment and piles 160 copies of a fat document on a table on the floor of the House.
The Chair announces that debate on the consolidated amendment on higher education (or human services, or the environment or local aid) will be put forward for a vote in 10 minutes. House members grab a copy to see if their own amendment survived or was amended, sometimes coming out to the lobby to consult with lobbyists and advocates. Eventually, a representative for the leadership – often the chair of the committee of the subject matter under consideration – will describe the consolidated amendment and take questions from the floor. Often grateful members will stand to praise the balanced and forward-thinking amendment, and others will predict disaster and doom for critical programs.
Eventually, on a motion from the Leadership at the podium, the consolidated amendment passes – sometimes unanimously, sometime with a small symbolic no vote from the minority party.
Occasionally, a disappointed or angry member will make a motion to debate their failed amendment and offer it on the floor to make a point. Knowing the leadership will stand in opposition, the member does not demand a roll call, in order to spare colleagues from voting against the leadership.
The House debate process, which at one time took two weeks of round the clock sessions featuring lively item-by-item debates, late night stunts, songs and shenanigans is now finished in three days in lengthy twelve hour (or longer) sessions featuring long recesses while lobbyists and advocates wait for the next “debate” of consolidated amendments.
Sigh.
This blog is cross posted on https://www.facebook.com/Massachusetts-Policy-and-Organizing-Leadership-Academy-323862294312903/
Ah yes, those were the days when the Legislature operated with some semblance of a democratic process. But democracy is messy and takes time. Budget debates would go on all night long for a week in each chamber.
Who wants that? The budget process is so much neater and more efficient now, and there is less acrimony (that we know of). Now, all the decisions are made behind closed doors by the Speaker, Senate President, and co-chairs of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees.
All the other members dutifully do what they’re told to do. They vote for the amendments that the leaders have put in the “yes” pile. Then they collect their paychecks, pat themselves on the back for a good day’s work, and go home early. They sleep tight knowing they have all served themselves well.
How does ten days per line item not take forever?
So, a totally ignorant question – how do the House Rules get made, and how would Representatives who realize how ridiculous it is to put this much power in the hands of a few people, change them?
The House rules get made by the House.
The present shenanigans, in fact, are NOT “anti-democratic” as some here have opined, but rather clearly well within the purview of the Representative model of government we all operate within: we gave them the power to do as they see fit when we elected them… That’s what “representation” means. The present set of Representatives think they can get away without debate if they come up with an outcome that is, or can be made to seem, acceptable…
The answer is not to get the present cadre of Representatives to be more “democratic” (because that’s a ridiculous thing on the face of it) but to replace them wholesale (or nearly so) with a whole new set of Representatives who’ll understand that the people who elect them do so for the express purpose of having them spend large amounts of time debating and legislating on important subjects.
I’m entirely willing to live with an outcome I disagree with, if I know it was derived from a set of high-quality decisions and/or debates. But the outcome I might agree with remains unlikely to satisfy if the quality of decisions leading up to it was poor.
It seems to me that it’s more complicated and subtle than “they make their own rules“. I have a hard time believing that a majority of the representatives actually like a system that is so difficult to work with. Is the problem that many of them work other jobs as well? Do they make enough money to devote the time they need to this? I honestly don’t know. I suspect they also don’t have enough staff. It’s hard work and time to read through all the bills and do research.
It’s a collective action problem. If a just few reps rebel against leadership, they lose and get frozen out.
Punishments include: being blocked out of leadership (which is worth both $$ and influence) and having your amendments and other priorities blocked. The big inducement to cooperate with the systems is getting “wins” you can brag to your constituents about.
No. It really isn’t. Read the Mass. Constitution some time: it gives the legislature full authority to make laws. The Mass Constitution is big on altering or abolishing government if it doesn’t meet the needs of the people so it doesn’t specify how government is supposed to work: it merely specifies that we have the right to alter it if we find it doesn’t work.
“so difficult to work with,” it seems to me, depends precisely upon what work is being attempted. Sure, if the goal is ‘good government’ — and that may be your goal and mine — then this mode is unwieldy… But if the goal of the individual representatives is merely to ‘get re-elected’ and maintain their cushy sinecure, then it’s actually not at all that difficult to work in this system.
The astute reader amongst us will note, perhaps ruefully, that the original diarist makes an unfavorable comparison between the “old days” and now… and the question is begged: if the present legislators lack staff and time, 1) what did previous legislators do to enable debate and B) why can’t the present legislators do that also???
It hardly seems possible that I can ‘tweet’ something that, in less than 30 seconds, may be read in Australia while our present cadre of legislators can’t meet the standard of past legislators who didn’t possess such wondrous ability…
Who makes the rules for debate in the Massachusetts Legislature?
From draft 4th edition of Lobbying on a Shoe string.
Rules of procedure for each standing and joint committee are developed by committee members and brought before the appropriate body for approval.
30 pages of House rules of House Rules Committee – a standing committee
. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Rules/House
Short version for legislative website
The House Rules Committee considers all bills reported from policy and fiscal committees and determines whether, and in what order, to schedule their consideration on the floor of the House. The Rules Committee also reviews, adopts and schedules consideration of floor The House Rules Committee considers all bills reported from policy and fiscal committees and determines whether, and in what order, to schedule their consideration on the floor of the House. The Rules Committee also reviews, adopts and schedules consideration of floor resolutions.l
Members
•
William C. Galvin
Chair
•
Marjorie C. Decker
Vice Chair
• Byron Rushing
• Louis L. Kafka
• Joseph F. Wagner
• Ronald Mariano
• David M. Nangle
• Paul J. Donato
• Patricia A. Haddad
• Michael J. Moran
• Sarah K. Peake
• Ann-Margaret Ferrante
• Kimberly N. Ferguson
• David T. Vieira
• Sheila C. Harrington