CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran's imperial edict enforced
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran summoned more than a dozen House members behind closed doors yesterday and urged them one-on-one to back a bill giving him nearly unilateral power to hand out extra pay to his lieutenants.
Finneran's fierce lobbying set off concerns from critics that the speaker is trading pork barrel projects for votes....
The bill's opponents said Finneran appeared to have picked up at least a few of the approximately 12 additional votes he'll need to push the pay measure through. They predicted he would bring the matter up for a vote as soon as he is sure of having the two-thirds majority he needs to make the bill law despite Romney's objection. Some members believe that vote could come today....
The bill's opponents identified four Democratic representatives who voted "no" in April who are now indicating an openness to switching: Christopher J. Donelan of Orange, Anne M. Gobi of Spencer, Matthew Patrick of Falmouth, and David B. Sullivan of Fall River....
To gain support, Finneran is promising many House members that he won't use the power to expand the number of extra-paying positions during the current legislative term, which runs through next year. But the bill's opponents say the measure would still be a mistake, since legislative leaders would be given almost unfettered power to reward loyalists with extra pay in perpetuity.
Finneran's critics say the speaker already has too much power over control of legislation and House operations.
"He's saying, 'Still give me the power, but I'm not going to use it right away,'" said [state Rep. Brad] Jones, the Republican leader. "That's enough of a fig leaf for some, I guess, but it doesn't address the governor's concerns."
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran lobbying for pay raise powers
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is floating a "compromise" on his pay-raise plan to win the backing of lawmakers squeamish about supporting him and incurring the wrath of voters.
To reach the two-thirds vote needed to override Gov. Mitt Romney's veto of the pay-raise bill, Finneran is promising he won't hand out any extra pay until 2005 - after the next election, several lawmakers said.
Rep. Frank M. Hynes (D-Marshfield) signaled in a letter to Finneran earlier this week that he was considering defecting, reversing his vote for the measure because he could see no "compelling public interest" in backing it.
But during a sit-down with the speaker yesterday, Hynes said Finneran offered to openly promise from the well of the House that there would be no new stipends for members of his leadership team for the next 18 months....
But opponents say it's a fool's bargain. "It's an attempt to give them all political cover," Common Cause Massachusetts director Pam Wilmot said.
"They override the veto and the speaker promises not to use his new power to give out raises until after the election," she said. "It's a phony compromise and anyone who votes for it is going to face some serious public anger. The public isn't that easily fooled." ...
He was hard at work at that task all day yesterday, House members said, seemingly obsessed with winning this particular power struggle with Romney.
"It's just been hovering over the chamber," said the leader of the opposition, Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End). "The only way I know we still have the votes to sustain the veto is because the speaker hasn't brought it forward. He'll only do that if he knows for sure he'll win.
Finneran could not be reached for comment yesterday. His spokesman did not return a call last night.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran tries to save pay-hike plan with promise
The House yesterday easily restored $23 million in aid to cities and towns that Governor Mitt Romney had vetoed from the Legislature's budget, handing him a setback on the biggest cut the governor was seeking to make....
Legislators voted 140-15 to override the veto, in one of many lopsided defeats handed to the governor in the second day of House budget veto overrides. The defection of GOP lawmakers reinforced concern among party officials that Republican House members have been unwilling to back their own party's governor on key votes....
In the only Romney veto to be upheld thus far, the House voted 143-11 to reject a proposed $10 fee on motorists who appeal traffic violations. House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who has supported the measure, was handed a rare loss on the House floor, with members arguing that the justice system should not come with a price tag.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
House restores $23m in local aid
Romney's vetoes are handily rejected
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
If anyone needs further evidence of how quickly and
ruthlessly House Speaker Tom "Caligula" Finneran will abuse
any new power he can wrest from democracy, look no further than his
reported acts of desperation yesterday -- abusing in the extreme the
power already at his disposal in his take-no-prisoners obsession
to acquire even more:
"Finneran's fierce lobbying set off concerns from critics that the speaker is trading pork barrel projects for
votes," the Boston Globe reported. Caligula is right now
trading-off taxpayer-funded pork for "nearly unilateral power,"
as if the bribe money is his to reward and punish. And he expects
anyone to believe he wouldn't abuse additional and absolute
power? Not during this session, he promises.
Even if his codicil somehow made the power-grab more
palatable (it doesn't), we know the value (none) and lifespan (until
they get their way and have what they want) of a political promise on
Beacon Hill anyway. They have taught us too well.
The ruthless House speaker has been reduced to
desperately providing cover for his flock when they must answer to their
constituents if they abjectly surrender their independence. His secret
meetings calling wayward sheep onto the carpet before his throne likely
went something like this:
"You've carried well the imperial edict that
the House simply wants to organize ourselves like the governor's
office does, as I instructed; that you're willing to submit to being
just my 'staff.' Now vote with me then return to your region and
convince the unwashed serfs that I won't abuse this insignificant
power ... at least not until after you're reelected. Do this for me
and in gratitude I may have a little reward later for you too ... deny
me this small grant and I'll have your head on a spike."
The self-proclaimed "Churchillian" has
surely fallen far from the ideal that existed only in his mind.
The Bay State Wizard of Oz isn't just pulling on the
levers behind his curtain, he's ripping them out of the machinery in
anger and frustration. He knows he must win this one to remain
Beacon Hill's top dog and is putting everything on the line to pull out
a desperate victory.
There's still time to call your state rep and senator
and tell them how you feel about the Finneran Pay-Raise Power-Grab, but
act RIGHT NOW if you're going to act at all. The override vote is
expected to happen TODAY.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
Your state 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 June 25.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran lobbying for pay raise powers
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran summoned more than a dozen House members behind closed doors yesterday and urged them one-on-one to back a bill giving him nearly unilateral power to hand out extra pay to his lieutenants.
Finneran's fierce lobbying set off concerns from critics that the speaker is trading pork barrel projects for votes. According to several House members who attended the meetings, the speaker asked about their major spending and legislative priorities when he met with them about the pay raise bill. Implicit in those discussions, they said, was the promise of favorable consideration for those priorities in return for their support.
"'Tis the season to be talking to members about all their concerns, if you know what I mean," said House Republican Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., who was not among those who met with the speaker.
The pay raise bill has presented an unusual challenge to Finneran's leadership, and the House is deeply divided over whether to give him the power he seeks. Governor Mitt Romney has vetoed the measure, and put pressure on Republicans to back his veto.
The bill would strip the governor of any authority to review the extra pay Finneran and the Senate president hand out to their committee chairmen and other members of their leadership teams. Currently, bonus pay must be approved through changes in law. This bill would instead allow it to be increased through the more informal House or Senate rules.
The measure passed by a vote of 100-50 in the House in April, a margin that would have narrowly overridden a gubernatorial veto. But most of the 13 Republicans who voted for the bill say they will now vote "no" to show support for Romney, so Finneran must find a roughly equal number of Democrats who voted "no" to switch their votes. That effort consumed much of the speaker's day yesterday, and he did not appear on the House floor even as members considered whether to override a number of budget vetoes.
The bill's opponents said Finneran appeared to have picked up at least a few of the approximately 12 additional votes he'll need to push the pay measure through. They predicted he would bring the matter up for a vote as soon as he is sure of having the two-thirds majority he needs to make the bill law despite Romney's objection. Some members believe that vote could come today.
"It's close -- very close," said state Representative David P. Linsky, a Natick Democrat.
The bill's opponents identified four Democratic representatives who voted "no" in April who are now indicating an openness to switching: Christopher J. Donelan of Orange, Anne M. Gobi of Spencer, Matthew Patrick of Falmouth, and David B. Sullivan of Fall River. None of those representatives returned calls seeking comment yesterday.
The measure's opponents said Sullivan was seeking favorable treatment from Finneran for a measure he backs to close the sprawling Browning-Ferris Industries Landfill, which is dangerously close to Fall River's main water supply. Sullivan's bid to shut the landfill was spiked by the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee in 2001. But he refiled the bill this term, and the same committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on it tomorrow.
Several lawmakers said Donelan, a House freshman, is concerned about not having adequate funding for the district court in his hometown if he continues to oppose the pay-raise measure. Romney vetoed most of the money for the courthouse, which he believes should be shuttered for lack of use, and Finneran this week will decide whether the House should seek to restore that funding.
Charles Rasmussen, Finneran's spokesman, declined to comment on allegations of horse-trading. He said the pay bill is intended to allow the Legislature to determine its own structure, without the interference of the executive branch.
"Speaker Finneran intends to propose that the full House exercise this authority to eliminate obsolete committees in order to create more relevant ones," Rasmussen said. "These changes reflect the reality and necessities of today's society without radically altering the organizational structure of the House."
To gain support, Finneran is promising many House members that he won't use the power to expand the number of extra-paying positions during the current legislative term, which runs through next year. But the bill's opponents say the measure would still be a mistake, since legislative leaders would be given almost unfettered power to reward loyalists with extra pay in perpetuity.
Finneran's critics say the speaker already has too much power over control of legislation and House operations.
"He's saying, 'Still give me the power, but I'm not going to use it right away,'" said Jones, the Republican leader. "That's enough of a fig leaf for some, I guess, but it doesn't address the governor's concerns." Jones, of North Reading, initially voted for the bill but has since committed to opposing it to support the governor's veto and show Republican unity.
Notwithstanding the intense lobbying by Finneran, the bill's opponents said they were confident they could sustain the governor's veto and keep the measure from becoming law.
"Despite the heavy pressure being applied by the speaker, I remain cautiously optimistic that the votes are there to sustain the veto," said state Representative Paul C. Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat.
Raphael Lewis and Frank Phillips of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Brendan McCarthy contributed to this report.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran tries to save pay-hike plan with promise
by Elizabeth W. Crowley and Elisabeth J. Beardsley
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is floating a "compromise" on his pay-raise plan to win the backing of lawmakers squeamish about supporting him and incurring the wrath of voters.
To reach the two-thirds vote needed to override Gov. Mitt Romney's veto of the pay-raise bill, Finneran is promising he won't hand out any extra pay until 2005 - after the next election, several lawmakers said.
Rep. Frank M. Hynes (D-Marshfield) signaled in a letter to Finneran earlier this week that he was considering defecting, reversing his vote for the measure because he could see no "compelling public interest" in backing it.
But during a sit-down with the speaker yesterday, Hynes said Finneran offered to openly promise from the well of the House that there would be no new stipends for members of his leadership team for the next 18 months.
Hynes, like many members, is queasy about padding legislative wallets while constituents are squeezed by a bad economy and huge budget cuts, said Finneran's new deal "causes me to pause."
But opponents say it's a fool's bargain. "It's an attempt to give them all political cover," Common Cause Massachusetts director Pam Wilmot said.
"They override the veto and the speaker promises not to use his new power to give out raises until after the election," she said. "It's a phony compromise and anyone who votes for it is going to face some serious public anger. The public isn't that easily fooled."
The plan pushed by Finneran since the start of the new session would expand his power to dole out extra pay to favored lawmakers.
Currently, any new paid leadership positions within the House or Senate are created by amending state law, requiring each chamber and the governor to sign off. Finneran wants to vest that power in the rules committee which he firmly controls, taking Romney and all future governors out of the equation.
The leadership stipends typically range from between $7,500 to $15,000, which is added to members' base salary of about $53,000.
House Majority Whip Lida E. Harkins (D-Needham) said Finneran has promised nothing and has been simply polling members about their objections to the plan.
A parade of lawmakers, including several Republicans who voted against the measure in April, trooped through Finneran's office yesterday to hear him out on the issue.
"(Finneran) is certainly working overtime on this," said House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading.)
Jones, one of 13 of the 23 House Republicans who initially sided with Finneran on the plan, said he believes GOP members will stick with the governor and reject the speaker's deal.
If Jones' prediction holds true, Finneran needs to persuade to his side more than two dozen lawmakers who either voted against the plan initially or didn't cast a vote.
He was hard at work at that task all day yesterday, House members said, seemingly obsessed with winning this particular power struggle with Romney.
"It's just been hovering over the chamber," said the leader of the opposition, Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End). "The only way I know we still have the votes to sustain the veto is because the speaker hasn't brought it forward. He'll only do that if he knows for sure he'll win."
Finneran could not be reached for comment yesterday. His spokesman did not return a call last night.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
House restores $23m in local aid
Romney's vetoes are handily rejected
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
The House yesterday easily restored $23 million in aid to cities and towns that Governor Mitt Romney had vetoed from the Legislature's budget, handing him a setback on the biggest cut the governor was seeking to make.
Democratic leaders argued that the cut would unnecessarily jeopardize local services. Romney has said the Legislature's budget was $200 million out of balance, but lawmakers defend their spending plan and say no further cuts are required. In a blow to Romney, 11 of the House's 23 Republicans crossed party lines to support the override of the governor's veto.
"The governor cuts too deep to cities and towns, [and] cuts cops and firefighters almost needlessly," testified House Ways and Means chairman John H. Rogers, a Norwood Democrat. "Stand with the cities and towns, and give them back this $23 million in local aid."
Legislators voted 140-15 to override the veto, in one of many lopsided defeats handed to the governor in the second day of House budget veto overrides. The defection of GOP lawmakers reinforced concern among party officials that Republican House members have been unwilling to back their own party's governor on key votes.
Yesterday, state GOP chairman Darrell Crate sent an e-mail to Republican activists across the Commonwealth, urging them to ask Republican lawmakers to support the governor on a range of issues.
"I have heard from our Republican legislators about the many phone calls from lobbyists and Beacon Hill insiders pressuring individual legislators to override the vetoes," Crate wrote. "Too often, our Republican legislators only hear from the critics. I am asking each of you to call them today to lend your support in their fight to promote and implement Governor Romney's reform agenda."
Last week, Romney said the $23 million cut in the local aid "additional assistance" account was necessary to bring the Legislature's $23 billion budget into balance. In all, when grant programs are included in the tally, Romney sought to trim an additional $57 million in local aid, and so far more than half of those vetoes have been overturned.
The House also voted yesterday to lower the amount the state reimburses pharmacies that fill Medicaid prescriptions, despite Romney's attempt to keep the existing rates in place. The House would pay $3 per prescription -- down from the current $3.50 -- for brand-name drugs and $5 for generic medications, as an incentive for pharmacies to dispense less expensive drugs.
In addition, lawmakers voted to impose a $75 annual registration fee for sex offenders, with $750,000 of the money raised going to reduce the backlog of classifying and listing offenders. Romney had objected to the fee because he feared it would make sex offenders less likely to register with the state.
In the only Romney veto to be upheld thus far, the House voted 143-11 to reject a proposed $10 fee on motorists who appeal traffic violations. House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who has supported the measure, was handed a rare loss on the House floor, with members arguing that the justice system should not come with a price tag.
In the Senate, lawmakers steadily overrode the same vetoes the House had, with most voting along party lines. Under the state constitution, the override of budget-related vetoes must be initiated in the House.
Also yesterday, the House voted 151-3 to pass a bill designed to help cities and towns cope with cuts in state aid by raising fees on parking and towing, and by giving communities the ability to offer early retirement to workers, among other provisions. The measure now awaits approval in the state Senate.
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey indicated that Romney would probably sign the measure when it reaches his desk, because it contains few provisions the administration considers objectionable. But she criticized lawmakers for ignoring many of the overhauls affecting communities that Romney offered in a bill that has languished in the Legislature.
Healey said legislators should have abolished civil service regulations, made it easier for cities and towns to contract out construction work, and forced municipal employees to contribute more to their health insurance plans.
"It doesn't contain almost any of the reforms that we had proposed in our municipal relief package," Healey said. "It seems very heavily reliant on fees."
Healey held a press conference yesterday to urge lawmakers to keep intact the voter-approved initiative banning bilingual education programs. Legislators sought to continue "two-way" bilingual programs, in which English-speaking children learn foreign languages alongside immigrants who are learning English as a second language. Romney opposes any watering down of the ballot initiative.
Under the law approved by voters in November, the state's dozen such programs can only remain in place for immigrant children over the age of 10 (though English-speaking children in the programs will be largely unaffected). Supporters of two-way bilingual education -- along with the Massachusetts Teachers Association -- are pushing the Legislature to expand that exemption for younger children, to increase the range of learning options available to foreign-born students.
"The biggest problem that I see is one that has to do with rights of parents," said Marla
Perez-Selles, principal of the Amigos School, a two-way school in Cambridge. "While white English-speaking parents have a choice whether they want this or not, whether they want this school or that school, linguistic minority parents are treated as idiots."
Anand Vaishnav of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
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
|