[statecom-discuss] Fwd: Legislative wheels turn out of view

[gary hicks]

yup ------------------ surprise, surprise!!!

gary hicks <dailyplanet20032003 at yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: gary hicks <dailyplanet20032003 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Legislative wheels turn out of view 
To: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com>

     THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING  
            Legislative wheels turn out of view      Boston Globe      Community activist Carl Nilsson stood outside the House chamber late one night this month and spoke  with any elected representative who would stop. He asked them to vote against a last-minute corporate tax amendment, one that was heavily influenced by lobbyists and business groups.      Matt Viser      April 25, 2008  -->   Legislative wheels turn out of view Biggest decisions made secretly on Beacon Hill By Matt Viser, Globe Staff  |  April 25, 2008
 Community activist Carl Nilsson stood outside the House chamber late one night this month and spoke with any elected representative who would stop. He asked them to vote against a last-minute  corporate tax amendment, one that was heavily influenced by lobbyists and business groups.
 But nothing Nilsson said would matter. Behind closed doors, the decision had already been made by a handful of influential lawmakers. By 9 p.m., the five-page, highly technical amendment carried easily on a voice vote, with little public debate.
 It demonstrated how the wheels of government turn on Beacon Hill. Most important decisions take place behind closed doors, including those on some of the weightiest topics in recent months: legalizing casinos, levying new taxes, and formulating the $28 billion state budget. In an increasingly common practice, even committee votes are frequently taken via Blackberry and e-mail, with the results released later.
 And because the Legislature exempted itself decades ago from the state's open-meeting and public records laws, lawmakers often deliberate in private and keep key documents - schedules,  e-mails, even some voting records - hidden from public view.
 Democrats, who control the House and Senate, frequently hold closed-door party caucuses to hash out policy details; by the time legislation reaches public view, ready for a vote, the results are typically predetermined.
 In the case of the vote Nilsson was watching, the action had serious financial consequences that were unknown that night to many legislators: The Department of Revenue now estimates that the amendment could open the door for up to $200 million in annual tax breaks for large corporations that set up overseas operations.
 "It was very frustrating," said Nilsson, campaign director of Neighbor to Neighbor, a nonprofit organization that advocates for low-income families statewide. "Doing these things in the dead of night makes it harder to have a public discussion and for legislators to understand what they're voting  for."
 It's hardly surprising or new that Massachusetts politics includes hidden agendas and backroom deals, a practice that has been in play since John Hancock became the state's first governor in 1780. But as Massachusetts has once again become virtually a one-party state, there are fewer challenges to open up the process or questions directed at the handful of powerful legislative leaders who dictate the flow of legislation. Some of the means of centralizing authority put in place by former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran have continued under the current speaker, Salvatore F. DiMasi.
 "I'm troubled by the current process," said Representative James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat. "There is a lot of peer pressure that inhibits members from taking their votes to the House floor, and [unless it's backed by leadership] you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of it passing. Institutionally, the House has grown comfortable with the current system, and  it needs to become more open."
 The opaque practices continue despite a pledge by DiMasi when he became speaker in 2004. He told colleagues that he would empower rank-and-file legislators, encourage more public policy debate in committees, and "open the windows of this institution and let the light of the 21st century in."
 DiMasi declined requests for an interview, but his spokesman released a statement, pointing to efforts to increase openness by improving the Legislature's website and broadcasting 150 hours of committee hearings and floor debate online, "giving the public an unprecedented seat in the hearing room."
 "Under Speaker DiMasi, the House has become inarguably more open and transparent to the public," said the spokesman, David Guarino.
 Through a spokesman, Senate President Therese Murray also pointed to the online broadcasts of floor debates as evidence of openness.
 Governor Deval Patrick, who ran against the  "culture on Beacon Hill" and vowed to bring new levels of transparency to government, declined to comment. Patrick has denied several requests for records, including a request from the Associated Press in February for copies of his e-mails and other electronic communications.
 If crafting law is like making sausage, the process at the State House makes everything appear to come out like a prepackaged Fenway Frank.
 During the highly contentious casino debate, for example, lawmakers spent 13 hours in committee hearings, sustaining themselves on Gatorade and crackers as they listened to anyone who wanted to testify.
 But when it came time for deliberations among committee members, there were none. To cast votes, most e-mailed and phoned them in, some not even bothering to show up at the State House.
 For John Leschen, a 41-year-old historic preservation contractor from Plympton, this was the first time he had confronted State House  procedures, and he expressed disappointment.
 Leschen traveled several times to Beacon Hill, meeting with legislators and sitting through hours of hearings, to oppose the governor's plan to license three resort casinos. He was impressed with the amount of time legislators spent on the issue and the knowledge they had amassed, but said it was all for naught.
 "It was primarily for show," said Leschen. "These things happened the next day through e-mail, a quick debate, and a couple of votes."
 Legislators say e-mail voting is fairly common, particularly on routine matters, and it can come in handy in moving legislation along quickly. But it also means that lawmakers, who earn nearly $60,000 in annual base pay to represent their districts, can avoid airing their views in a public forum.
 "In a perfect world, we'd all be there, and we'd all speak great thoughts," said Representative  Daniel E. Bosley, a North Adams Democrat and cochairman of the committee that voted on the casino legislation. "But not everyone can be there, and . . . it's a good thing people are given options to vote."
 The e-mail voting is used only in legislative committees, which is where lengthy policy discussions typically take place, and not when issues reach the House and Senate floors, where votes are publicly displayed using red and green lights on an overhead board.
 There are a variety of other policies that shield lawmakers from public scrutiny or questioning. Photography and video equipment, for example, are, in most cases, banned from the House and Senate chambers. There is a rope line that keeps reporters, photographers, lobbyists, and other members of the public away from the House doors after crucial votes. If legislators want to answer questions, they can walk over to the rope to address the crowd. If they don't, they can slip out a back  door.
 Several of the House procedures "definitely have a way of making the process neater and smoother, but it's completely legitimate to question whether democracy is well served," said Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat. "If there were more debate, we would be in session longer, and it would be harder for a body of 160 members to follow. But it's definitely marked by less debate."
 Years ago, the Legislature routinely debated for weeks over the budget, with spirited floor fights over individual line items. But when Finneran became speaker, House leaders made several changes that made the process quicker and more orderly by consolidating power.
 When House members begin debate next week on how $28 billion in taxpayer money should be distributed, they will retreat to a spacious lounge blocked off from the public by a security guard and there decide which budget amendments make the cut.
 Members have submitted about  1,500 amendments, but which ones get through is largely determined by the chairman of House Ways and Means, Robert A. DeLeo, Democrat of Winthrop.
 In theory, lawmakers can appeal on the House floor. But by that time, most decisions have been made. "It really is a sad state of affairs in how we deal with this," said House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. . "It's not good for democracy."
 Matt Viser can be reached at maviser at globe.com. 

  
 
    © Copyright    var crYear = new Date(); document.write(crYear.getFullYear());2008 The New York Times Company
  
       '); //-->=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-'); //-->       PT_AC_Iterate();            

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and  know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.