CLT
UPDATE
Friday, July 11, 2003
"'Fiscal crisis' ends" as
Bacon Hill patronage defies vetoes
Breaking his silence on his controversial pay-raise bill for legislative leaders, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday insisted the measure "has nothing to do with salary or with padding anyone's wallet."
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 11, 2003
Finneran denies pols intend to pad wallets
A bill being championed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran that would expand his power to hand out leadership positions and stipends is "most likely" unconstitutional, a governmental watchdog group says.
Meanwhile, Finneran and his legislative team continued to lobby House members behind the scenes for their support in overturning Governor Mitt Romney's veto of the bill.
The bill was rumored to be up for consideration yesterday, but some lawmakers say Finneran still doesn't have the votes needed to carry the vote....
But most opponents say their problem isn't with the money; its the long-term ramifications of Finneran being able to dangle the carrot of higher-paying leadership positions in front of rank-and-file lawmakers he wants toeing the line, without any sort of check or balance....
"We would have one person responsible for deciding how to spend tax dollars in the House," Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, said. "It would be a violation of the separation of powers."
Freshman Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Hanson, said the bill would also prevent the issue from being addressed via voter referendum.
"It eliminates the checks and balances system we have in government," he said. "It takes away the people's rights to have a voice
whether or not legislators should receive pay increases....
"It's so open-ended that today it's homeland security then it could be far greater things in the future, and we can understand the governor's concern with that and his bringing it to our attention," [Rep. Vinny
deMacedo, R-Plymouth] said....
The House passed the bill in June by a 100-50 vote, with 13 of the 23 House Republicans backing the measure. Most GOP lawmakers have since changed course and say they will stand behind Romney, leaving Finneran without the two-thirds majority needs to override the veto.
This week he has met individually with several Democrats identified as possible swing votes. Word in the State House halls was that Finneran, who controls which and when vetoes come up for consideration, was hoping to bring the issue up for a vote this week, but won't until he is confident he has enough support to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat.
The House met for more than two hours yesterday in a caucus, but according to published reports, the legislative reorganization bill did not come up during discussions.
The Patriot Ledger
Thursday, July 10, 2003
House pay bill called unconstitutional;
Watchdogs protest Finneran plan to shift legislative oversight
The Boston Municipal Court is bigger and richer than ever, after state lawmakers yesterday overturned 42 separate vetoes Gov. Mitt Romney had levied against a court department that's been criticized as a bloated patronage haven....
All of the BMC vetoes were overturned by lopsided margins - with Majority Whip Lida E. Harkins (D-Needham) boasting at one point that the House's "record" for the fastest BMC veto override was 15 seconds....
The Senate did not act on the BMC yesterday - and there's some indication the Upper Branch isn't overly eager to climb aboard an issue that's been largely driven by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran.
One high-ranking Senate source said the BMC veto overrides would probably be brought up last, if at all.
"It's Finneran's thing," the source said. "The Senate doesn't care one bit about that."
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 11, 2003
House undoes gov's court cuts - and then some
Lawmakers seized the state alcohol control agency from Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday - even as it was revealed that the politically wired booze investigators had been enjoying special perks like taking time off work to play at the gym....
Romney cleaned house at the patronage-laden agency shortly after taking office - firing 11 investigators, including several with deep political ties.
But the Legislature yesterday voted to override Romney's vetoes and restore $940,000 to allow the ABCC to rehire the investigators....
Romney officials lambasted the Legislature's "transparent move" to protect patronage jobs.
"We would rather see this money go toward keeping rape crisis centers open than rehiring politically connected state employees," said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 11, 2003
Booze agency back on wagon
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
A week ago it was two municipal golf courses that the
Legislature kept in the budget at an expense to taxpayers of $400,000 of
their hard-earned dollars ... one in Weston, one of the state's most
prosperous communities. Golf anyone?
Yesterday the House made a mockery of state
government reform, piling pork on its patronage havens and
politically-connected friends and relatives.
The Legislature has demonstrated that the good times
are rolling as usual.
Governor Romney is doing his best to honor his
mandate to "clean up the mess" but, so long as Finneran
controls the power, patronage and abuse will win in the end.
It "has nothing to do with salary or with padding anyone's
wallet" Speaker Finneran glibly asserts, grabbing for even more
power. On Bacon Hill it's always about power and padding pols'
wallets and those of their friends, family and assorted insiders ... and
we taxpayers foot the bill.
Yesterday's House overrides of the governor's vetoes
demonstrate that the "fiscal crisis" is over ... if there ever
really was one as we've challenged all along. They were just hoping to
deceptively grab more of our money to squander like they did during the
roaring '90s.
|
|
|
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 Herald
Friday, July 11, 2003
Finneran denies pols intend to pad wallets
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
Breaking his silence on his controversial pay-raise bill for legislative leaders, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday insisted the measure "has nothing to do with salary or with padding anyone's wallet."
During an interview with WB56's Jon Keller to be aired at 8:30 a.m. Sunday, Finneran at first said the bill deals strictly with housekeeping matters and doesn't involve extra pay.
But moments later, he told the Herald he would have no further comment on "the pay-raise issue."
Finneran also lashed out at Gov. Mitt Romney, who has seesawed on the pay-hike issue but is now actively lobbying members to sustain his veto of it.
"(Romney) is on one day and off another day," the Mattapan Democrat said. "The governor has done a contortion and left (Republicans who initially sided with Finneran) hanging."
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Thursday, July 10, 2003
House pay bill called unconstitutional;
Watchdogs protest Finneran plan to shift legislative oversight
By Rick Collins
A bill being championed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran that would expand his power to hand out leadership positions and stipends is "most likely" unconstitutional, a governmental watchdog group says.
Meanwhile, Finneran and his legislative team continued to lobby House members behind the scenes for their support in overturning Governor Mitt Romney's veto of the bill.
The bill was rumored to be up for consideration yesterday, but some lawmakers say Finneran still doesn't have the votes needed to carry the vote.
Pam Wilmot, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of Common Cause, said in a letter to House members yesterday that she will "virtually guarantee" a court challenge, should they override Romney's veto.
"We think it's unconstitutional based on language the Supreme Judicial Court issued in 1996 saying that legislative compensation needs to be accomplished through statute and cannot be done through the rules of a particular branch," Wilmot said.
"What this bill does is change the way compensation is awarded from a statute to a rule."
The bill would essentially remove gubernatorial oversight from the way the House and Senate change their committee structures, create leadership positions and hand out extra pay. Changes would be made by amending each branch's internal rules, which requires only a majority vote by each body.
Although when he vetoed the bill late last month Romney said he was mainly concerned about binding future governors' ability to weigh in on the issue, he also suggested at the time the bill may be unconstitutional. However, he didn't say whether he'd challenge it in court.
Supporters of the bill argue the House ought to be able to organize in a way it sees fit.
Rep. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy, a floor division leader, said opponents are unfairly personalizing the bill as a tool for the Finneran to grab more power, as opposed to it being about giving the House the ability to manage its internal affairs in a way it sees fit.
"The change in the statute is a change with some measure of permanence. There are going to be other speakers down the road," he said. "It has nothing to do with giving out pay raises to legislators and everything to do with giving the House's the ability to organize its affairs."
He pointed out that people gave Romney a free pass when he shuffled his cabinet around and created a $150,000 a year director of communications position for his campaign spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom.
"He got a pass on it," Tobin said of Romney. "If it's OK for Romney to do that, and if it's OK for Romney to set their salaries ... why is it not OK for the House to create their own committees on Medicaid and homeland security?"
Finneran has proposed eliminating the committees on counties and federal financial assistance and replacing them with what he considers more relevant committees dealing with Medicaid and homeland security issues.
Some, such as Rep. Bruce Ayers, D-Quincy, argue creating two new committees sends a bad signal at a time when the Legislature has approved a fiscal 2004 budget that cuts billions in aid and services.
"I just don't think its the prudent time to be doing this," he said.
Finneran has said there would be no net increase to House spending by creating the new committees. He said two committees could be eliminated for balance. He has also reportedly offered a compromise that would delay handing out additional stipends until the start of the 2005-06 session.
But most opponents say their problem isn't with the money; its the long-term ramifications of Finneran being able to dangle the carrot of higher-paying leadership positions in front of rank-and-file lawmakers he wants toeing the line, without any sort of check or balance.
While a House member's $53,000 base salary is around the national average for a full-time legislator, Massachusetts ranks near the top when per diems and stipends for chairmen, vice-chairmen and other leadership roles are factored in.
"We would have one person responsible for deciding how to spend tax dollars in the House," Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, said. "It would be a violation of the separation of powers."
Freshman Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Hanson, said the bill would also prevent the issue from being addressed via voter referendum.
"It eliminates the checks and balances system we have in government," he said. "It takes away the people's rights to have a voice whether or not legislators should receive pay increases."
Plymouth Rep. Vinny deMacedo, who receives a $7,500 stipend as the ranking GOP member on the House Ways and Means Committee, originally voted in favor of the bill, but said he has changed his stance and will likely vote to sustain the veto of his fellow Republican.
DeMacedo said he, and many other Republicans, originally thought the bill contained a sunset clause, and didn't realize the change would be permanent.
"It's so open-ended that today it's homeland security then it could be far greater things in the future, and we can understand the governor's concern with that and his bringing it to our attention," deMacedo said.
The House passed the bill in June by a 100-50 vote, with 13 of the 23 House Republicans backing the measure. Most GOP lawmakers have since changed course and say they will stand behind Romney, leaving Finneran without the two-thirds majority needs to override the veto.
This week he has met individually with several Democrats identified as possible swing votes. Word in the State House halls was that Finneran, who controls which and when vetoes come up for consideration, was hoping to bring the issue up for a vote this week, but won't until he is confident he has enough support to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat.
The House met for more than two hours yesterday in a caucus, but according to published reports, the legislative reorganization bill did not come up during discussions.
On the advice of House lawyers, Rep. Thomas O'Brien, D-Kingston, voted present during the House vote on the bill, as he stands to become the Medicaid committee vice-chairman.
He said it is not clear whether he will vote if it comes up again, but appears to support the measure.
"The reorganization is appropriate in that we are creating two committees that are pertinent and relevant," he said.
Rep. Frank Hynes, D-Marshfield, Rep. Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy, Rep. James Murphy, D-Weymouth, Rep. Robert Nyman, D-Hanover, Rep. Joseph Driscoll, D-Braintree, Rep. William Galvin, D-Canton, Rep. Susan Williams Gifford, R-Wareham, and Rep. Kathy
Teahan, D-Whitman, did not return calls seeking comment.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 11, 2003
House undoes gov's court cuts - and then some
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
The Boston Municipal Court is bigger and richer than ever, after state lawmakers yesterday overturned 42 separate vetoes Gov. Mitt Romney had levied against a court department that's been criticized as a bloated patronage haven.
Romney had tried to fold the BMC into the larger district court system, but House lawmakers did the exact opposite - sticking a number of Boston-area district courts under the BMC's jurisdiction.
"Don't fall prey to these political trial balloons," said House Judiciary Chairman Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D-Chelsea). "That is all it is - rhetoric from the Corner Office."
House Republicans, particularly those from Central and Western Massachusetts, fired back that the BMC is a "dinosaur" whose budget far exceeds courts with heavier caseloads, such as Springfield District Court.
"It is a glaring inequity that is perceived throughout the rest of the commonwealth," said Rep. Mary S. Rogeness (R-Longmeadow). "It is something our voters back home will not tolerate."
All of the BMC vetoes were overturned by lopsided margins - with Majority Whip Lida E. Harkins (D-Needham) boasting at one point that the House's "record" for the fastest BMC veto override was 15 seconds.
Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman criticized the BMC as a "symbol of inefficiency and waste" that draws resources from other courts. "It's a well-known patronage haven," Feddeman said. "Our hope is that the Senate lets reform prevail over politics."
The Senate did not act on the BMC yesterday - and there's some indication the Upper Branch isn't overly eager to climb aboard an issue that's been largely driven by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran.
One high-ranking Senate source said the BMC veto overrides would probably be brought up last, if at all.
"It's Finneran's thing," the source said. "The Senate doesn't care one bit about that."
After four days of overrides, the House has voted to overturn more than $60 million of Romney's $201 million in vetoes.
Also yesterday, House lawmakers moved to restore $1.25 million Romney had cut from emergency medical services, and $15 million Romney clipped from the probation commissioner's office.
Lawmakers also tucked $300,000 back into the Appeals Court justices' budget, and $500,000 back into community corrections.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 11, 2003
Booze agency back on wagon
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Lawmakers seized the state alcohol control agency from Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday - even as it was revealed that the politically wired booze investigators had been enjoying special perks like taking time off work to play at the gym.
Prior to Romney's election in November, investigators at the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission had for a year been allowed to take off an hour a day - any hour, at their "discretion" - four times a week to take part in a "fitness program" of their own design, according to memos obtained by the Herald.
Additionally, for two years, investigators had free reign to tote personal firearms and "use deadly force whenever it is reasonable and necessary to combat deadly force" - despite concerns about state liability, according to the agency's firearm policy.
ABCC Chairwoman Mary-Jo Griffin, who did not institute either policy, revoked both within weeks after Romney won the election.
Romney cleaned house at the patronage-laden agency shortly after taking office - firing 11 investigators, including several with deep political ties.
But the Legislature yesterday voted to override Romney's vetoes and restore $940,000 to allow the ABCC to rehire the investigators.
In line to reclaim their old jobs are Jan Kujawski, brother of state Rep. Paul Kujawski (D-Webster), and Jamie
Binienda, son of House Energy Committee Chairman John J. Binienda (D-Worcester).
With many lawmakers complaining of Romney's "assault" on the ABCC, the House and Senate also voted to turn the agency over to state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, a Democrat.
"We're going to put it into an administration that cares about this office," said Rep. Peter J. Koutoujian (D-Waltham).
Romney officials lambasted the Legislature's "transparent move" to protect patronage jobs.
"We would rather see this money go toward keeping rape crisis centers open than rehiring politically connected state employees," said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
Even if the patronage hires are recalled, they're not out of the woods yet. Cahill vowed to set up a transition team to shake up the agency.
"I intend to administer this commission with the same stringent business practices I use to administer the other departments of the state Treasury," Cahill said in a written statement.
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
|