CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Finneran power-grab seeks to hire
and fire, state rep admits
Throwing down the gauntlet with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, Gov. Mitt Romney last night spiked a bill allowing legislative leaders to shower pay hikes on loyalists....
Issuing his first major veto since taking office six months ago, Romney voiced "serious concerns" about the legislation, which would have given Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini unfettered powers to dole out extra money to favored lawmakers.
Finneran and his allies - including House Republican leaders - had pitched the bill, which includes the creation of several new committees, as a mere reshuffling of the internal House structure....
The House vote of 100-50 was a razor-thin two-thirds majority - the exact amount needed for a veto override....
On the Democratic side of the aisle, multiple sources said members of Finneran's inner circle have been burning up the phone lines in an effort to shore up support among his committee leaders.
Citizens for Limited Taxation has also waded into the fray, calling each House Republican to demand that they abandon Finneran.
"The Romney-Bulger battle was nothing compared to the Romney-Finneran battle," said CLT's
Barbara Anderson. "This is like Armageddon."
The Boston Herald
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes legislative pay raises
It was unclear yesterday whether or when Finneran would attempt an override vote of Romney's veto. The measure passed in the House with precisely a two-thirds majority -- the margin necessary to override. But nearly a dozen lawmakers were absent or abstained the day of the vote. What's more, the 23 Republicans in the House split on the matter, but would probably back the governor in the event of an override, eroding Finneran's position.
"I suspect that the speaker will bring the veto override when he feels that he has the sufficient number with him, and not a moment before then," said Representative J. James Marzilli Jr., an Arlington Democrat, one of a handful of House lawmakers who regularly clashes with Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat. "And he will use every inducement he can muster between now and then to get to that point." ...
Republican Senator Brian P. Lees, the Senate minority leader, said an override vote might not pass in his chamber, either.
"We've had two votes in the Senate, and both times we've had a number of Republicans and Democrats not supporting the bill because of the way the language was written," said Lees, of East Longmeadow. "It's not just politics, this bill; there is a huge, long-term public policy change in here which is not healthy for a democracy."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes bill on legislative raises
Lack of ending date called 'unacceptable'
State Rep. Mark Howland, D-Freetown, said he supported the pay raises and he would support overriding the governor's veto.
The pay raises merely give the House leader the same power the governor already has, he said....
"The administrative branch has the power to set its staff. This was to give the legislative branch the same power," he said.
The New Bedford Standard-Times
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes raise bill
Gov. Mitt Romney, in a direct challenge to House Speaker Tom Finneran, vetoed a bill yesterday that would allow the Legislature to raise the pay of some lawmakers.
The move has at least one North Shore representative cheering the GOP governor. Doug Petersen, D-Marblehead, said he's worried that the bill, if it becomes law, would give Finneran, also a Democrat, an unprecedented and dangerous level of power.
"Good for him (Romney)," Petersen said. "This is an issue with far reaching implications."...
Petersen worries that if Finneran is given the power to provide financial rewards and punishments to individual members, it could ultimately translate into an undue influence over all legislative matters. The pay raises would even go to ranking members, said Petersen, making Finneran's control absolute.
Ultimately, Petersen worries, the speaker's powers could exceed the governor's.
"I called the governor's office on this," Petersen said. "And I called my constituent,
Barbara Anderson, (the anti-tax activist from Marblehead) and asked her to lobby the governor."
The Salem News
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes legislative pay raise bill
Oh, Gov. Mitt Romney, there's one little problem with the no-new-taxes budget you're about to sign. There are new taxes in it, at least three by the latest count....
There are, of course, tongue-twisting arguments to be made that these are not really new taxes. The issues are complicated and not as easy to label in a 30-second soundbite as, say, an increase in the income tax.
But when a Republican governor, elected on a no-new-taxes promise, is in the position of arguing that a proposal he's approving isn't a new tax - really it isn't - he's put himself on the wrong side of the argument.
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Trio of taxes in budget
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
If you need more proof of the intent of Finneran's
pay-raise power-grab it arrived today courtesy of state Rep. Mark
Howland (D-Freetown).
"The administrative branch has the power to set its staff. This was to give the legislative branch the same power,"
he asserted to the New Bedford Standard-Times.
We know that the administration's staff works at the
pleasure of the governor and is answerable only to the chief executive.
The governor hires and fires his staff at will and sets their salaries within
his budget ... a budget that is subject to approval by the Legislature.
None of the governor's staff are elected or constitutionally recognized
as the governor's equal.
By Rep. Howland's admission, now we know who
Finneran's "leadership" staff works for -- and it isn't
their constituents. Those reps apparently are perceived by Finneran as
working at the pleasure of the speaker and are answerable only to him.
If he can hire and fire more of them and set their salaries
within an unlimited budget, before long the entire Democrat
caucus -- Finneran's "staff" -- and other hangers-on will work at his pleasure.
The truth has surfaced, and it's just as we've said
all along.
"The pay raises merely give the House leader the same power the governor already
has," Howland argued. But the speaker is not the governor
under our constitution and its separation of powers as the document now
stands; he is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He does not
get to hire and fire members of the House of Representatives --
apparently looked upon as merely his "staff." Only their
constituents have that power, and for good reason.
But that reason is not good enough for
Imperious Maximus. Finneran is determined to become the shadow governor
-- because he recognizes that this is as close to governor as he will ever
become.
Besides, the Beacon Hill Machiavelli prefers to work
in the shadows, behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz, omnipotent and
accountable to none, while his capos -- his elite Special Democrat Guard
-- arm-twist, intimidate, and exert pressure in his name.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
Your rep and senator need to know you
oppose the Finneran pay-raise power-grab and will not forget how they vote.
This is a critical turning point in
Massachusetts history, a point that will define our very form of government.
Don't let it pass by without voicing
your opinion. Find
your rep and senator now, and let him or her know where you stand: for
democracy or for a "Finneran Rules" autocracy.
When you call, just tell whoever
answers the phone that you're a constituent and would like the representative or
senator to sustain the governor's veto on the Finneran Power-Grab. If there's a
question, refer them to the CLT
memo that was delivered to their offices on Wednesday, June 25.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes legislative pay raises
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Throwing down the gauntlet with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, Gov. Mitt Romney last night spiked a bill allowing legislative leaders to shower pay hikes on loyalists.
The Republican governor chastised lawmakers for approving the bill, saying it would "forever" rob future governors and the public of vital checks and balances.
"That is unacceptable to me," Romney said in a written statement.
Issuing his first major veto since taking office six months ago, Romney voiced "serious concerns" about the legislation, which would have given Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini unfettered powers to dole out extra money to favored lawmakers.
Finneran and his allies - including House Republican leaders - had pitched the bill, which includes the creation of several new committees, as a mere reshuffling of the internal House structure.
But after wavering through a series of positions on the bill, Romney zeroed in on the money - also objecting to lawmakers' move to make any pay hikes retroactive to the start of the year.
A spokesman for Finneran declined comment last night but there are strong indications the speaker will resurrect the bill and attempt to override Romney's veto.
Finneran has been furious with Romney for changing his past support for the pay-hike bill, after the governor initially said he wouldn't interfere with House affairs.
"(Finneran) thinks it's important," one House official said. "He'll look around and see whether he's got the votes or not."
In addition to forcing a fight with Finneran, Romney's move casts a harsh spotlight on House Republicans, where 13 out of 23 lawmakers voted with Finneran to strip the governor of the right to review legislation compensation.
The House vote of 100-50 was a razor-thin two-thirds majority - the exact amount needed for a veto override.
If any Republicans peel away to stand with Romney, the legislation may be doomed.
"We have the votes if the Republicans hang in," said Rep. Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat who opposes the bill, told the Associated Press.
Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading) did not return a call last night, but his spokesman, Darren Johnson, said House Republicans would likely huddle on the matter early next week.
"We completely respect Gov. Romney's decision," Johnson said. "As Republicans, we support our Republican governor."
Heavy duty lobbying was under way on both sides of the issue before the ink dried on Romney's veto order.
Romney dispatched Cindy Gillespie, his legislative affairs director, to meet with House Republicans and impress upon them the importance of standing with their governor, sources said.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, multiple sources said members of Finneran's inner circle have been burning up the phone lines in an effort to shore up support among his committee leaders.
Citizens for Limited Taxation has also waded into the fray, calling each House Republican to demand that they abandon Finneran.
"The Romney-Bulger battle was nothing compared to the Romney-Finneran battle," said CLT's
Barbara Anderson. "This is like Armageddon."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes bill on legislative raises
Lack of ending date called 'unacceptable'
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Making good on a threat, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday vetoed a bill that would give legislative leaders much greater discretion in handing out pay raises to their lieutenants.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini had said the measure was essential for creating new, important committees, such as one concerned with homeland security and another dealing with Medicaid, the state's single largest budget expense.
But the bill failed to include an end date, which Romney said was essential for preserving a check and balance on legislative compensation.
"At the outset, we said we think the Legislature deserves the opportunity to organize themselves as they see fit, and that hasn't changed," said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman. "But taking the governor out of that process on a permanent basis, that's unacceptable."
It was unclear yesterday whether or when Finneran would attempt an override vote of Romney's veto. The measure passed in the House with precisely a two-thirds majority -- the margin necessary to override. But nearly a dozen lawmakers were absent or abstained the day of the vote. What's more, the 23 Republicans in the House split on the matter, but would probably back the governor in the event of an override, eroding Finneran's position.
"I suspect that the speaker will bring the veto override when he feels that he has the sufficient number with him, and not a moment before then," said Representative J. James Marzilli Jr., an Arlington Democrat, one of a handful of House lawmakers who regularly clashes with Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat. "And he will use every inducement he can muster between now and then to get to that point."
All override votes on vetoes of revenue bills must begin in the House, but to be successful, two-thirds of the House and the Senate must agree.
Republican Senator Brian P. Lees, the Senate minority leader, said an override vote might not pass in his chamber, either.
"We've had two votes in the Senate, and both times we've had a number of Republicans and Democrats not supporting the bill because of the way the language was written," said Lees, of East Longmeadow. "It's not just politics, this bill; there is a huge, long-term public policy change in here which is not healthy for a democracy."
Romney is expected to deliver several more vetoes to the Legislature on Monday, when he unveils his full response to the Legislature's $23 billion proposed spending plan, which included controversial policy initiatives.
Globe staff writer Yvonne Abraham contributed to this report.
Return to
top
The New Bedford Standard-Times
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes raise bill
By the Associated Press
and by Jack Spillane, Standard-Times staff writer
Gov. Mitt Romney, in a direct challenge to House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, vetoed a bill yesterday that would allow the Legislature to raise the pay of some lawmakers.
Gov. Romney objected to the bill because it would let legislative leaders hike the pay of top lieutenants without the governor's approval. Rep. Finneran now must scramble to determine if he has enough votes to override the veto.
"I had serious concerns with this legislation because it took away forever the say of future governors and the public in matters dealing with legislative compensation," Gov. Romney said. "That is unacceptable to me."
Gov. Romney said he also objected to making any potential pay raise retroactive to the beginning of the year, which the bill proposed.
House lawmakers in April passed the bill 100-50, barely qualifying as veto-proof at two-thirds support. Nine members did not vote, and one seat was vacant.
Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen would not comment yesterday.
Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston, was pleased Gov. Romney vetoed the measure and says Finneran and House opponents already are counting votes.
"We have the votes if the Republicans hang in," Rep. Rushing, a frequent Finneran critic, said of his quest to defeat a potential override vote, which must begin in the House.
Thirteen Republicans, including Minority Leader Bradley Jones Jr. of North Reading, voted for the bill. They may now be under more pressure, however, to reverse course and support their Republican governor. Rep. Jones was not available to comment yesterday, spokesman Darren Johnson said.
State Rep. Mark Howland, D-Freetown, said he supported the pay raises and he would support overriding the governor's veto.
The pay raises merely give the House leader the same power the governor already has, he said.
"I think he's trying to micromanage, and I've been in business too long to be a micromanager," he said.
Mr. Howland has long run an environmental consulting company.
Mr. Howland criticized the governor, saying he had claimed to eliminate 21 press secretaries but six months after he took office 14 of them are still on the state payroll.
Speaker Finneran saved the cost of the pay raises by renegotiating the cost of the television coverage of House sessions with Channel 44, he said.
"The administrative branch has the power to set its staff. This was to give the legislative branch the same power," he said.
In the Senate, all 40 members are either chairman and vice-chairman and already receive the $7,500 to $15,000 extra stipend, he said. The chairman of the busiest committees receive $25,000, he said.
Gov. Romney as recently as this month indicated he would support such a measure, as long as it wasn't a permanent change.
The Senate version, in an apparent effort to reach a compromise with the governor, included a provision that would have the new law extend only through the end of the current legislative session in December 2004. It passed, 29-9.
But critics called it a smoke screen because the provisions, while technically expiring, would be reinstituted through a pro forma vote every two years.
Senate President Robert Travaglini's spokeswoman, Ann Dufresne, did not immediately return a call to comment.
The bill would create new committees on Medicaid and Homeland Security and establish stipends for the leaders of those panels.
Committee chairmen not only enjoy more power, they also get a bump in pay, typically an extra $7,500 or $15,000 above the legislative base salary of $53,381. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee makes an additional $25,000 over the base salary.
Return to
top
The Salem News
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Romney vetoes legislative pay raise bill
By the Associated Press and staff writer Alan Burke
Gov. Mitt Romney, in a direct challenge to House Speaker Tom Finneran, vetoed a bill yesterday that would allow the Legislature to raise the pay of some lawmakers.
The move has at least one North Shore representative cheering the GOP governor. Doug Petersen, D-Marblehead, said he's worried that the bill, if it becomes law, would give Finneran, also a Democrat, an unprecedented and dangerous level of power.
"Good for him (Romney)," Petersen said. "This is an issue with far reaching implications."
The bill would let legislative leaders hike the pay of top lieutenants without the governor's approval. Finneran now must scramble to determine if he has enough votes to override the veto.
"I had serious concerns with this legislation because it took away forever the say of future governors and the public in matters dealing with legislative compensation," Romney said. "That is unacceptable to me."
Romney also objected to making any potential pay raise retroactive to the beginning of the year, which the bill proposed.
House lawmakers in April passed the bill 100-50, barely qualifying as veto-proof at two-thirds support. Nine members did not vote, and one seat was vacant.
Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen would not comment Friday.
Petersen worries that if Finneran is given the power to provide financial rewards and punishments to individual members, it could ultimately translate into an undue influence over all legislative matters. The pay raises would even go to ranking members, said Petersen, making Finneran's control absolute.
Ultimately, Petersen worries, the speaker's powers could exceed the governor's.
"I called the governor's office on this," Petersen said. "And I called my constituent,
Barbara Anderson, (the anti-tax activist from Marblehead) and asked her to lobby the governor."
Once a Finneran supporter and legislative leader himself, Petersen fell out with the speaker over the Clean Elections bill. He has since been returned to the ranks of ordinary representatives.
Petersen expressed the hope that Romney's veto could be sustained.
"If we can hold the 50 votes and grab a few more then we have a shot," he said.
Thirteen Republicans, including Minority Leader Brad Jones, who represents a portion of Middleton, voted for the bill. They may now be under more pressure, however, to reverse course and support their Republican governor. Jones was not available to comment yesterday, spokesman Darren Johnson said.
Romney as recently as this month indicated he would support such a measure, as long as it wasn't a permanent change.
The Senate version, in an apparent effort to reach a compromise with Romney, included a provision that would have the new law extend only through the end of the current legislative session in December 2004. It passed 29 to 9.
But critics called it a smoke screen because the provisions, while technically expiring, would be reinstituted through a pro forma vote every two years.
Senate President Robert Travaglini's spokeswoman, Ann Dufresne, did not immediately return a call to comment.
The bill would create new committees on Medicaid and Homeland Security and establish stipends for the leaders of those panels.
Along with a change in title, committee chairmen would also get a bump in pay, typically an extra $7,500 or $15,000 above the legislative base salary of $53,381. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee makes an additional $25,000 over the base salary.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Saturday, June 28, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Trio of taxes in budget
Oh, Gov. Mitt Romney, there's one little problem with the no-new-taxes budget you're about to sign. There are new taxes in it, at least three by the latest count.
The first is the elimination of the underground storage tank cleanup fund which turns the state's 2-and-a-half-cent surcharge on every gallon of gas into a tax, not a fee. We'd be certain the governor was going to veto this one ... if he didn't propose it himself. The tax is a pass-through from gas wholesalers to retailers to, guess who, drivers, raised with the administration's blessing on April 1.
Romney did have a plausible argument that the charge was really a fee since it went into a dedicated fund to clean up the environment, the kind of fee-for-service definition used to justify hundreds of millions in fee increases.
But once the fund to clean up underground storage tanks is eliminated, the money - some $60 million per year - will go into an unrestricted account, where it can be spent on just about anything. And that's what makes it a tax.
The prescription drug tax, new and improved by the Legislature after a superior court judge threw out the original, is still a tax, not a fee as state leaders before Romney had postured. Unless it's vetoed, 65 cents will be tacked on directly or indirectly to the cost of prescriptions.
And rounding out the tax trio is the supplemental rebate for bulk purchases of prescription drugs - forcing discounts beyond federal requirements on pharmaceutical companies doing business with the state Medicaid program.
Supplemental rebates are a bad idea for lots of reasons, not least of which they send a terrible message to the very biotech CEOs Romney is trying to woo.
But now, Grover Norquist, head of the influential national advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, has labeled the plan a tax on business, providing yet another good reason to veto it.
There are, of course, tongue-twisting arguments to be made that these are not really new taxes. The issues are complicated and not as easy to label in a 30-second soundbite as, say, an increase in the income tax.
But when a Republican governor, elected on a no-new-taxes promise, is in the position of arguing that a proposal he's approving isn't a new tax - really it isn't - he's put himself on the wrong side of the argument.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|