House Speaker Thomas Finneran is struggling to round up the two-thirds votes needed to override one particularly sticky veto, Romney's nixing of a bill giving Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, largely unfettered power to hand out raises to favored fellow lawmakers.
Finneran, D-Boston, has said little publicly about the issue, but spent at least one day this past week hunkered down in his office meeting one-on-one with individual House members....
Public interest groups, including those typically at odds with each other, have teamed up to push back against Finneran, vowing to put a recall petition on next year's ballot if lawmakers override the veto.
Critics complain that the measure simply increases the power of the speaker and senate president. In the past, Finneran has portrayed the bill as a way to give the House and Senate more autonomy to organize themselves.
One thing both sides agree on is that Finneran won't call for an override vote until he is sure he can win....
Both battles the veto overrides and the legislative pay are far from over. The House and Senate are scheduled to return in full formal sessions this week.
Associated Press
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Twin dramas unfolding
as lawmakers weigh budget overrides, legislative pay
The real story behind the budget story unfolding on Beacon Hill this summer is the House speaker's pay raise bill.
Word is that the measure Speaker Thomas M. Finneran has spent much of the week cajoling lawmakers to back is on life support, and slipping fast....
If Mr. Finneran fails to get two-thirds of his flock to override the veto, it would be a strong reflection of a House that is more independent-minded than it has been since Mr. Finneran became speaker in 1996.
Limiting that fractionalization is precisely why some observers think Mr. Finneran needs the extra authority conferred by the bill, which would let him dole out more cash bonuses without approval from the Senate or governor....
In any event, what happened last week annoyed a lot of lawmakers who resented waiting through tedious days of deliberations over relatively minor vetoes while the speaker called legislator after legislator into his office to press them for support....
Mr. Finneran and his deputies insist that his main motive is simply to reorganize committees and to have the ability for the House to organize its own structure.
The pay issue has nothing to do with it, they say.
The bill's title, however, "An Act Relative to the Compensation of Certain Members of the General Court," and three references to compensation in the bill's short text, belie that assertion....
While small items made it to the House floor for overrides this week, many issues most important to local lawmakers were being held up, and many still are, while the speaker negotiated....
But one firm rule of thumb at the Statehouse is that the speaker never lets an override vote come to the House floor until he is sure of the outcome.
Mr. Finneran has been fighting for the bill since January, when he filed the measure.
It is not dead yet.
The Telegram & Gazette
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Finneran fights hard for pay bill:
Speaker uses leverage in closed-door meetings, fights for pay measure
Anytime you get Citizens for Limited
Taxation, Common Cause and CPPAX fighting for the same cause, you know it's serious.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Friday, July 11, 2003
Odor in the House
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
House Speaker Tom Finneran is exhibiting obsession
in the extreme over his attempted power-grab. It has become his top
priority because he committed himself to a scheme he thought would fly
through beneath the radar ... but the CLT radar screen caught him
red-handed and got out the word.
"If Mr. Finneran fails to get two-thirds of his flock to override the veto, it would be a strong reflection of a House that is more independent-minded than it has been since Mr. Finneran became speaker in
1996," reported the Telegram & Gazette today ... and that's
why Caligula is panicking, pulling out the stops to bull his way
through the political crisis of his own creation, his insatiable lust
for ever-increasing power.
This is the defining moment for him, at long last a
potential turning point for democracy in the people's House of Representatives.
The pressure now on our "representatives" to assert at least
a modicum of independence is coming from all quarters: liberals,
conservatives, libertarians ... and the media.
In his mind it "has nothing to do with salary
or with padding anyone's wallet," and that's true, in his mind.
It's all about increasing his power: the money is just another
means to that end, at taxpayer expense and that of democracy itself.
On Feb. 4 my commentary in the CLT Update
immediately attacked Finneran's Pay-Raise Power-Grab when it was first
reported. In "As the deficit burns, Finneran diddles"
I wrote:
"As the deficits burns, Finneran diddles, and stealthily grabs for even more power....
Finneran's priorities are as obvious as his strategy."
Our ally in opposition, Common Cause, jumped out
front with its criticism as well on that day. The Boston Herald
reported ("Finneran paves way for pals' pay raises"):
"Now we are back at square one with this back-door sleazy attempt to raise salaries without a floor debate or even any public discussion," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts....
On Feb. 5 the Boston Herald reported ("Romney, House GOP won't challenge speaker's pay hikes"):
Gov. Mitt Romney and House Republicans are taking a pass on controversial pay hikes for lawmakers, refusing to tangle with Speaker Thomas M. Finneran over his plan to reward top lieutenants with bonuses....
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation praised House liberals for standing up to Finneran.
"This is a snapshot of what is wrong with Beacon Hill, this craving for more and more power ... and the Republicans are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else," she said.
Later that day we delivered a memo to all House
Republicans, "Re: Finneran (More) Power Grab,"
that called on them to oppose Finneran's Pay-Raise Power-Grab and
called on the governor to veto it if passed.
On Feb. 6 the Boston Globe reported ("Finneran withdraws bonus push"):
"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."
In response to a Boston Globe report of June 14
("Romney says he would probably sign limited pay raise bill"),
in my Update commentary of June
16 I wrote:
If Governor Romney buys into the Finneran pay raise power grab, it'll be the biggest mistake he'll make in his fledgling administration and it will come back to haunt him again and again: it'll be the end of any hope he has to ever sustain any veto he makes.... Governor Romney must realize this will hand the Massachusetts Machiavelli unilateral power to use taxpayer money to raise an invincible army of Flock Leadership
beholden to "The Prince" for its mercenary rewards.
By June 25, we'd been in touch with the governor's
office and expected that he'd veto the Finneran Pay-Raise Power-Grab.
CLT then issued a memo to the Legislature, "Finneran (More) Power Grab: the end of
representative democracy and the balance of power."
The governor vetoed the power-grab ... and here we
are. Still it isn't over because the ruthless Finneran is battling to
maintain his stranglehold on unlimited power over his flock. Today,
it's no longer just a matter to winning: the Finneran crisis today is
the threat of losing. He cannot afford another loss, another display
of his diminishing role as Ultimate Leader.
It's not over yet, and it's going to get really
down and dirty before this Beacon Hill Apocalypse concludes.
Finneran's very future is now at stake, as is democracy in
Massachusetts.
In the end only one can reign supreme.
|
|
|
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 memos
that were delivered to their offices on June
25 and July
9.
Associated Press
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Twin dramas unfolding
as lawmakers weigh budget overrides, legislative pay
By Steve Leblanc
Statehouse watchers are being treated to twin dramas one public, one private as Beacon Hill drifts toward the summer doldrums.
On the floor of the House and Senate, Democrats are publicly handing Gov. Mitt Romney his hat as they override veto after budget veto, restoring tens of millions of the $201 million Romney cut from the Legislature's final version of the state spending plan.
Well away from prying eyes another story line is unfolding.
House Speaker Thomas Finneran is struggling to round up the two-thirds votes needed to override one particularly sticky veto, Romney's nixing of a bill giving Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, largely unfettered power to hand out raises to favored fellow lawmakers.
Finneran, D-Boston, has said little publicly about the issue, but spent at least one day this past week hunkered down in his office meeting one-on-one with individual House members.
According to representatives, including one of whom met with Finneran, the House leader pledged to delay any pay raises for the rest of the 2003-2004 session.
Finneran's job got a little tougher last week as many Republican members indicated they would vote to uphold Romney's veto.
The House approved the bill in April by a 100-50 vote. Nine members did not vote and one seat was vacant.
Thirteen Republicans, including Minority Leader Bradley Jones Jr. of North Reading, voted for the bill.
If those Republicans switch their votes, Finneran will be forced to get the entire two-thirds votes he needs from Democrats, which would mean wooing those who didn't vote and flipping some of those who did or at the least convincing them not to be in the House chamber during an override vote.
Public interest groups, including those typically at odds with each other, have teamed up to push back against Finneran, vowing to put a recall petition on next year's ballot if lawmakers override the veto.
Critics complain that the measure simply increases the power of the speaker and senate president. In the past, Finneran has portrayed the bill as a way to give the House and Senate more autonomy to organize themselves.
One thing both sides agree on is that Finneran won't call for an override vote until he is sure he can win. The Senate must also override the veto before it takes effect.
Even members of Finneran's leadership team are reluctant to talk about the issue.
House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood deferred comment last week.
"I'm not focused on that whatsoever. I'm focused on overrides," Rogers said.
Meanwhile, on the floor of the House and Senate, Romney could do little more than watch as Democrats overturned veto after veto: scuttling his plans to downsize the Boston Municipal Court; restoring $23 million in state aid to cities and towns; and transferring power over the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission to the state Treasurer's office.
The rejection of entire chunks of Romney's self-described "reform" agenda could give the Republican governor a rhetorical club to wield against Democratic leaders if the state's economy fails to recover in the new fiscal year.
Despite the rejection of many of Romney's vetoes, there were a few bright spots for the administration.
Late last week, Democratic leaders conceded they didn't have the votes to revive a $1.30 tax on prescriptions. Romney had vetoed effort to restore the tax.
Both battles the veto overrides and the legislative pay are far from over. The House and Senate are scheduled to return in full formal sessions this week.
Return to
top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Finneran fights hard for pay bill:
Speaker uses leverage in closed-door meetings, fights for pay measure
News Analysis
By Shaun Sutner
The real story behind the budget story unfolding on Beacon Hill this summer is the House speaker's pay raise bill.
Word is that the measure Speaker Thomas M. Finneran has spent much of the week cajoling lawmakers to back is on life support, and slipping fast.
If the bill that would give the Boston Democrat virtually unfettered leeway to reward loyalists with extra pay is indeed dead, it would be a nearly unprecedented political defeat for the powerful legislative leader.
And the winner would be not only Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who vetoed the legislation to box Mr. Finneran into one of the tightest spots of his career.
House dissidents, Republicans, progressives and others who have chafed under the speaker's iron rule will also benefit, because the speaker's aura of invincibility will have been diminished.
If Mr. Finneran fails to get two-thirds of his flock to override the veto, it would be a strong reflection of a House that is more independent-minded than it has been since Mr. Finneran became speaker in 1996.
Limiting that fractionalization is precisely why some observers think Mr. Finneran needs the extra authority conferred by the bill, which would let him dole out more cash bonuses without approval from the Senate or governor.
About a third of the House's 160 members now get bonuses of between $7,500 and $22,000 above their base salary of $53,381.
With the new measure, Mr. Finneran would only need a majority vote to bring even more members into his orbit - an easy hurdle for the speaker even in a restive chamber.
In any event, what happened last week annoyed a lot of lawmakers who resented waiting through tedious days of deliberations over relatively minor vetoes while the speaker called legislator after legislator into his office to press them for support.
The speaker was offering what he considered a compromise. He promised to hold off on any pay raise for the rest of the legislative session, which ends in January.
Mr. Finneran and his deputies insist that his main motive is simply to reorganize committees and to have the ability for the House to organize its own structure.
The pay issue has nothing to do with it, they say.
The bill's title, however, "An Act Relative to the Compensation of Certain Members of the General Court," and three references to compensation in the bill's short text, belie that assertion.
In return for his verbal promise, Mr. Finneran wanted the votes of some of the 50 lawmakers who voted against the bill when it passed the House 100-50 last April.
And he had plenty of leverage.
While small items made it to the House floor for overrides this week, many issues most important to local lawmakers were being held up, and many still are, while the speaker negotiated.
In state Rep. Christopher J. Donelan's case, the specter of the dismantling of Orange District Court in the heart of his district had to be looming during the face-to-face chat the freshman lawmaker had with the speaker about the pay raise matter.
Mr. Donelan says the issue never came up, but the Orange Democrat, who was one of six Central Massachusetts Democrats who opposed Mr. Finneran in April, now says he is considering Mr. Finneran's deal.
According to Mr. Donelan, Mr. Finneran's lieutenants have committed to taking up and overriding Mr. Romney's veto of most funding for the Orange court and seven other courts the governor wants to close.
Meanwhile, after pressure from the governor, all of the 23 House Republicans, including three who voted with the speaker in the spring, are now said to be securely in the "no" column.
In Central Massachusetts, the only other Democrats Mr. Finneran could possibly get to flip, other than Mr. Donelan, are Reps. Mark J. Carron of Southbridge, Jennifer M. Callahan of Sutton, James B. Eldridge of Acton, Anne M. Gobi of Spencer, and Rep. Robert P. Spellane of Worcester.
Mr. Carron, Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Spellane all maintain they would vote against the bill, even with Mr. Finneran's promise not to tinker with pay this session.
Ms. Gobi and Ms. Callahan, two other freshmen who conceivably could be susceptible to Mr. Finneran's influence, did not return calls seeking to determine their current positions.
But one firm rule of thumb at the Statehouse is that the speaker never lets an override vote come to the House floor until he is sure of the outcome.
Mr. Finneran has been fighting for the bill since January, when he filed the measure.
It is not dead yet.
Return to
top
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Friday, July 11, 2003
Editorial
Odor in the House
Anytime you get Citizens for Limited Taxation, Common Cause and CPPAX fighting for the same cause, you know it's serious.
These three don't agree on much, but they do feel giving the speaker of the House of Representatives the power to arbitrarily create new "leadership" positions and set the pay for same is a recipe for autocracy.
As for incumbent Speaker Thomas Finneran's offer not to grant any immediate pay raises if legislators support his bill, these organizations know what that means: "Give him the power he craves, and he won't abuse it ... this year!"
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