The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 6, 2003
Finneran withdraws bonus push
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
In an extraordinary turnabout, House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran yesterday backed off his bid to raise the pay of several members of his leadership team,
saying that he recognizes the matter should be discussed only after the House
acts to close the state's gaping budget deficit.
The move came during a dramatic day on which Finneran at
first tried to ram through the controversial measure to grant him additional powers over
members' bonus pay by tacking it on to a bill to balance the budget. But after
many of his Democratic colleagues, including some of his loyalists, erupted
in anger during a three-hour closed-door caucus, Finneran took to the House floor
to say he was withdrawing the measure, at least for now.
"It seems to me that process is oft-times as important as
product," Finneran said in a rare speech on the House floor. "There are some members who are
troubled with the process. Given that fact, and the fact that this debate is
occurring as part and parcel of something that has much larger implications
for all of us ... it is my considered judgment that we should step back from
consideration of the section which has drawn such controversy."
Finneran's decision was shocking in large part because his
measure appeared well on its way to becoming law earlier in the day. House Republicans were not
raising objections -- they stand to benefit, since pay hikes for the leadership of
the minority party are typically triggered by increases given to Democratic
leaders. The state Senate was also expected to go along.
Even Governor Mitt Romney, who pledged to change the Beacon
Hill culture as a candidate, was holding his fire. He indicated he considered the bill to be a
matter of internal legislative organization, something he would rather not
interfere in given his plans to restructure state government.
"I want the ability to be able to organize the executive
branch the way it can be most effective to carry out its missions," Romney said. "I would expect that the
speaker and the Senate president have a great deal of latitude in the way
they organize their respective branch of government."
But Finneran faced a barrage of criticism in the Democratic
caucus, with rank-and-file members expressing outrage at his bid to boost legislative
salaries during a time of fiscal crisis, according to House members who were at
the meeting. Several members recounted gas station and coffee shop conversations with constituents who were appalled at Finneran's
efforts. The speaker first tried to push the bill while members, unaware of what he was
doing, were streaming out of the chamber Monday.
While the discussions were led by Democrats who clash
frequently with Finneran, several members who tend to support him also spoke against the
measure in the caucus, House Democrats said. Finneran backed off when it
became clear to him that he may have had trouble even mustering majority
support for the bid, said state Representative Jay R. Kaufman, a Lexington
Democrat.
"He's nothing if not astute, and this was the right thing to
do," said Kaufman, a frequent Finneran critic. "I don't know what the outcome would have been, but
it was by no means a foregone conclusion."
Still, Finneran said he would look to bring the matter up
again in the near future, on a day when pressing budget matters are not on the agenda. While
the speaker could face a tough vote if he tries to introduce the changes he is
seeking as a formal bill, since the bill was not filed before the beginning
of this term, he has other methods at his disposal to bring the proposed changes to a
vote.
The measure sought to hand Finneran and Senate President
Robert E. Travaglini unprecedented authority to boost salaries for members of their
leadership teams, their committee chairmen, and some of their vice chairmen.
Finneran wants to provide four additional vice chairmen with $7,500 pay
bonuses, and to increase pay for at least two of his committee chairmen.
Now, 51 of 160 House members receive pay above the $53,380 base salary for
leadership posts they hold, a system that critics say is overly generous and
makes members more beholden to the powerful speaker.
Under current law, changes in leadership pay can only be
achieved through passage of legislation, which can be vetoed by the governor. But the bill that
Finneran proposed would put all leadership compensation matters under the
purview of the more informal joint rules of the House and Senate. Those rules
are set by the speaker and the Senate president and are generally rubber-stamped by the full bodies.
On the House floor, Finneran issued a vigorous defense of
his proposal, emphasizing that its main purpose is to give the House a more productive
committee structure, something he said was crucial for the legislative body to
remain relevant in unstable times.
With the House prepared to trim $300,000 out of its
administrative expenses next year, he said costs for members' bonus pay would be more than offset by
the savings. Top members of Finneran's leadership team have said the speaker
wants to spend an additional $55,000 a year on extra pay.
"None of what I have proposed would involve any net cost to
the Commonwealth," Finneran said. "I would not have even outlined it for the
members if it was not only just a wash or the equivalent, but unless I could
demonstrate substantial savings."
But if Finneran tries to push the measure through again, the
speaker's critics and several outside advocacy groups are gearing up for a fight.
"It's amazing that he backed off, but it's probably
temporary," said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which is prevailing on Republican House members to oppose Finneran's move. "The pay
raises are simply Finneran's way of consolidating more and more power. You
don't want to have any more legislators beholden to him."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 6, 2003
Speaker Finneran backs off on raises
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
Caught in the glare of a public relations disaster over pay
hikes for lawmakers, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran made an uncharacteristic retreat
yesterday, all the while vowing to revive his plan later.
"We shall return to this in due course," Finneran said from
the well of the House. For now, he said, "we should step back from consideration of an
amendment that has drawn such controversy."
Finneran got caught Monday afternoon trying to gavel through
a measure that would give him unlimited power to hand out extra pay to favored lawmakers.
Liberal Democrats - none of whom sit on committees that pay
them a bonus - balked at the maneuver that would have paved the way for $7,500 stipends for
at least seven House committee leaders.
Those same legislators say they aren't against the pay hikes
as much as they are opposed to the way Finneran tried to do it - by slipping the measure in
after announcing that the important business of the day was finished.
And Republicans - who stand to pick up a few more committee
bonuses for their members under the speaker's plan - said they too are comfortable with it
as long as the House's overall budget doesn't increase.
The extra bonuses this year would cost about $55,000, House
Majority Whip Lida E. Harkins (D-Needham) said. Meanwhile, Finneran has carved more than
$200,000 out of the House budget by renegotiating contracts.
"We wouldn't even be coming close to a net gain with this,"
Harkins said.
After telling a radio audience yesterday morning that he had
been "kicked from one end of the football field to the other" on the pay raises, Finneran walked
into a buzzsaw of criticism from rank and file Democrats during a closed-door
session at the State House.
"There was a lot of anger expressed," said Rep. Jay R.
Kaufman (D-Lexington). "There was a lot of emotion over this proposal and over the communication
among members and with the public."
Legislative sources said both Democrats and Republicans were
furious with Finneran for putting them in the position of voting on pay raises when the state
economy is on its knees and the House is supposed to be dealing with the state
budget fiasco.
And they lashed out at the powerful speaker for trying to
obscure the pay raises by saying the effort was aimed solely at giving the Legislature the power
to organize itself without any interference by the governor.
Gov. Mitt Romney steered a wide path around the House
controversy. Saying he expected the House to be frugal, he added that he won't meddle in how it
gets there. "I am looking for the Legislature to take action to make sure costs
don't rise, to bring down costs, but how they do that and which members of
House get (extra) pay ... I don't intend to get involved in the nitty gritty," he
said.
Finneran told House members that communication within the
body was "splendid but temperament and moods are fickle." He added that lawmakers
shouldn't be distracted by the pay-raise issue as they take up the state's
budget crisis. "The fiscal imperative we face cannot be exaggerated or
overstated. For that reason, I suggest we concentrate our efforts there," he
said.
Finneran's critics outside the State House said he'll have
trouble ever finding a good time to bring up the subject of more money for legislators again.
"The substance of this proposal is just wrongheaded. We
don't need more paid positions in the House and this is just a back-door way of getting a pay raise,"
said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.
Return to top
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Wednesday, February 5, 2003
Editorial
Defy the speaker at your peril
OUR VIEW
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's power play is even more
distasteful in a year of job losses and budget cuts.
State Rep. Harriett Stanley is a veteran lawmaker who knows
there's a price to be paid for bucking the House leadership.
The West Newbury Democrat was long considered loyal to House
Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. But Stanley ran into trouble when she had the temerity
to oppose the speaker on insurance coverage for contraception, tax hikes and
Clean Elections. So she was bounced from her post as chairman of the Health
Care committee.
Stanley could not have been too surprised by Finneran's
actions. But it raises once again the question of how long voters are willing to tolerate the level of
power ceded to these leadership positions and the arrogance it inevitably
breeds. Stanley had dared to hope hard work would count for more than blind
loyalty. Not quite.
But what should outrage voters more than this latest round
of musical chairs, is the fact that even in these austere times Finneran is proposing to expand the
number of paid vice chairmanships he is allowed to dole out to loyalists, and
double the pay of a couple of his chairmen. Talk about buying blind loyalty.
It's not so much the cost of these extra perks, which all
told will amount to $50,000 or so. It's the fact that Finneran or anyone else at the Statehouse
would consider handing out bonuses at a time other state and municipal
employees are worried about losing their jobs and all manner of government
services are being trimmed. That should have voters up in arms.
Perhaps Finneran and his allies are already anticipating a
return to the fat times an increase in the income tax rate would bring.
Many view Republican Mitt Romney's election last year as a
reflection of voters' fear of the heavy price to be paid if one party were to have control of
both the executive and legislative branches of government. Obviously there's
reason for concern.
Finneran's latest moves are just further proof of Lord
Acton's dictum that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." One
wonders just how much longer the citizens of Massachusetts will stand for it.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 6, 2003
House votes to tap various reserve funds
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
The House yesterday voted to tap a range of reserve funds
and various state accounts to help cope with this year's budget gap, but lawmakers ignored most
of the controversial cost-cutting measures Governor Mitt Romney had asked
them to approve.
Representative John H. Rogers, chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee, said legislators found $150 million in various trust funds and other
state off-budget accounts -- more than the $143 million in spending reductions
Romney asked for legislative help on. But the governor accused the House of
relying too heavily on reserve funds to address the fiscal problems, saying the
Legislature should instead approve the reductions to Medicaid and changes to
state workers' health insurance plans that he has recommended.
"If they do not take action to close the full gap, then that
would require me unfortunately to go back and look at things that I rejected, and make cuts from
that list," Romney said. "That's the last thing I want to do."
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran acknowledged that the House
approach consists mostly of "bookkeeping" fund transfers, which do little to address
long-term problems with the state budget. But he said that was the best the
House could offer given the need to act quickly; Romney has warned of a
budget gap of between $500 million and $650 million in the fiscal year that
ends June 30.
"Time begins to run out on you at some point," Finneran
said. "We're not a rubber-stamp body, nor should we be. The governor only has to convince one
person, and in the House and Senate we have to get majorities."
On a voice vote, the House also adopted several tax law
changes designed to close corporate loopholes, moves that Romney had called for. Among the funds
that the House voted yesterday to tap are $39.6 million from the Capital
Projects Sluice Fund; $19 million from the state's workforce training fund; $13
million meant to reduce welfare caseloads; $13 million set aside for health care
needs; $7.5 million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; and $2.8 million
appropriated for the Clean Elections Law, a public campaign-financing measure.
Advocates for programs that depend on those funds said the
money is more than free cash. The housing fund transfer, for example, empties a fund that
helps repair state-owned affordable housing and subsidizes privately built
housing units, said Joe Kriesberg, president of Massachusetts Association of
Community Development Corporations.
"This is a real cut that will reduce the number of homes
built and renovated," Kriesberg said. "It moves us into the wrong direction in dealing with the
housing crisis."
Senate Ways and Means chairwoman Therese Murray said the
Senate will look to take up a roughly similar budget-balancing plan early next week. Like the
House, the Senate will probably not include the Medicaid cut or Romney's
proposal to force state workers to contribute more to their health plans, she
said.
Also yesterday, state leaders reached consensus on next
year's fiscal outlook, painting a bleak picture of state finances for the near future. The Romney
administration and House and Senate leaders announced that they believe the
state economy will grow by just 1 percent in the fiscal year that begins July 1 --
a figure that probably won't allow revenues to keep pace with inflation.
Eric Kriss, Romney's secretary for administration and
finance, said that level of growth will force the state's $23 billion budget to shrink by about $500 million
next year, in part because the state is relying heavily on reserves this
year. The state's budget hasn't seen a year-to-year decline since 1991.
Because reserves have been vastly depleted and since some
areas of state spending are slated to increase despite the lagging revenues, the gap between
revenues and the level of spending that would maintain current levels of state
services will be between $2.8 billion and $3 billion in fiscal 2004, Kriss said.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, February 5, 2003
Editorial
Call of the weak-kneed: Let's raise taxes!
It's a wonder how lawmakers have the stomach for spending
money in good times, but become nauseous when it comes to making spending cuts in bad
times.
At the Statehouse, a band of liberal Democrats are getting
weak-kneed over Gov. Mitt Romney's spending cuts, announced last week, to close this year's
$650-million budget gap. They've heard the outcry from special interest
groups. They know, too, the worst is yet to come: a projected $3 billion
revenue gap next year and more cuts.
Their response: Let's raise taxes!
Senate President Robert Travaglini and about a dozen House
Democrats are supporting a 2004 raid on the taxpayers' pocketbooks instead of fixing a
broken-down system they've helped create.
The lawmakers are rankled that Romney wants the Legislature
to cut $143 million, on top of the $343 million he's already cut from this year's budget.
They want Romney to finish the job alone. They aren't fooling anyone. They
want to keep their fingerprints off the budget-cutting table while pointing the
finger at Romney.
Some call it politics. We call it cowardice.
After the November election, legislative leaders pledged
cooperation with the Romney administration to restructure government and solve this crisis. They
said they'd prioritize programs and protect essential services. It's becoming
clear, though, they can't stomach the pain of living up to their end of the
bargain.
House Speaker Tom Finneran says it could take weeks before
lawmakers vote on Romney's suggested cuts. Such deliberation, so out of character in
Finneran's autocratic House, would only delay the inevitable.
Other House Democrats are mobilizing to repeal upwards of
$4.5 billion in tax cuts enacted over the last decade, including corporate tax breaks to large
employers like Raytheon and Fidelity. Most alarming is a bill filed by Rep. Ruth
Balser, D-Newton, increasing the income tax to 5.6 percent.
Two days ago, Travaglini hinted he'd combine tax increases
with cuts to balance the 2004 budget.
These actions fly in the face of what people want. Three
months ago, voters gave Romney a mandate to reform government without raising taxes. At the
same time, 44 percent of voters said they wanted to repeal the income tax.
These legislators are ignoring the message.
Economists say repealing corporate tax breaks could force
big employers out of Massachusetts, hampering the state's recovery. They say another tax increase
to workers, after last year's $1.2 billion tax package, would discourage
consumer spending.
With so much at stake, higher taxes and overspending are no
answer. What we need from the Legislature is fiscal restraint and the courage to make difficult
choices. This isn't a gut instinct. It's harsh reality.
