CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
In Mass. the more things remain the
same,
the worse they become
Beacon Hill lawmakers substantially weakened the new English immersion law before it even took effect - prompting Gov. Mitt Romney and the law's backers to howl yesterday, that politicians are once again trampling the voters' will.
"Our elected representative seem confused about the way democracy works - the people dictate to them, not the other way around," said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
Approved by 68 percent of voters - more than a 2 to 1 margin - the English immersion law passed just nine months ago in one of the biggest landslides in state history....
But even some Democrats expressed queasiness, given the Legislature's recent history of ignoring voter mandates.
"No one has proven the plan they voted for was a failure," said Rep. Phil Travis (D-Rehoboth). "Let's give this a chance to work." ...
The Senate debate, in which all five vetoes were overturned by votes of 28-9, was brief but bitter.
"There is not one reason we're doing this other than people in this chamber think they're smarter than the voters," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow). "It's disgusting."
Supporters retorted that Romney opposed the Clean Elections law, which voters approved in 1998 but lawmakers killed last month.
"When it's convenient, the voters spoke," Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) said. "When it's not, well, forget it."
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Pols say adios to bilingual reform
Despite the defeat, critics of bilingual education said they were unlikely to mount a new ballot referendum campaign to undo the Legislature's votes, which will automatically become law.
"Frankly, we can't" do it again, said Carol Sanchez, a Framingham parent of three who helped lead the English for the Children campaign last year. "If these senators and representatives voted for it, and their constituents don't care, there's nothing we can do about it."
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Legislature loosens law on English immersion
Allows some exceptions despite voter referendum
Supporters of the ballot question, the so-called Unz initiative, accused legislators of ignoring the will of voters.
"As with most ballot questions, this needs to be given the chance to run its course," said state Rep. Stephen
LeDuc, D-Marlborough, who voted to sustain Romney's veto. "I don't believe we have had that opportunity yet." ...
State Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham, rejected the notion that lawmakers turned their backs on voters by overriding Romney's vetoes.
"It's not about repealing the ballot question," he said. "The ballot question stands. In my 19 years, I don't think I've ever seen a ballot question that was passed that wasn't in one way or another refined by the Legislature." ...
"I don't know of a voter who, when they voted for this (ballot) question, knew about the Framingham two-way bilingual program and voted 'no' on it," he said. "We are not turning our backs on voters. We are simply saying (this) is a program that ought to be protected."
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Lawmakers save 2-way bilingual programs
Supporters of the two-way bilingual programs say they help immigrant students to learn English and help English speakers to learn a second language.
"We are a leader across the country with these (two-way) programs," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur, the House chairwoman of the Education Committee. "Why should we turn back the clock?"
Associated Press
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Legislature overrides Romney on bilingual education
Squelching rumors that he plans to relinquish his post, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said yesterday that he plans to complete his current term as speaker and run for reelection to the position in 2005.
"I am not stepping down," Finneran, 53, a Democrat, told the Associated Press. "My plan is to run for speaker in January of '05, to be elected as speaker in January of '05." ...
Many rank-and-file House members have engaged in a parlor game of sorts in recent days, trading gossip and snippets of intelligence that had Finneran looking to leave the job he's held since 1996. Such talk has intensified as Finneran has faced trouble pushing through a bill that would give him expanded power to set extra pay for his lieutenants.
Governor Mitt Romney vetoed that measure, and Finneran has been unable to find the two-thirds majority that is needed to override him. If Finneran is unable to do so, it would constitute an exceedingly rare defeat in the House for the powerful speaker....
But Finneran said he has no plans to leave his job. Yesterday, he sent his colleagues a letter outlining some major priorities for the remainder of this term, including approval of a proposed constitutional amendment that would automatically direct future budget surpluses to a rainy-day fund. Such an amendment could not become law until 2006....
Under a term-limit measure abolished by Finneran loyalists in 2001, he would have had to step down from the speaker's post at the end of 2004.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
House Speaker Finneran plans to keep his post
Finneran also said he would push for an amendment to the state constitution requiring the establishment of a permanent "rainy day" fund....
Finneran, who fought to build up the rainy day fund during the flush 1990s, said he would throw the weight of the office and his fund-raising prowess behind an effort to persuade lawmakers and voters to back the initiative....
"I'm going to do a lot of organizing across the state for that. I'm going to raise a lot of money for it and I'm going to try to make sure that thing succeeds ..." Finneran said.
Associated Press
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Finneran will run for speaker in '05
In light of our current budgetary situation, I will propose a constitutional amendment this fall which will provide Massachusetts with a more predictable, reliable, and stable means of funding the essential services upon which our citizens rely. The amendment proposes the establishment of a Taxpayers' Reserve Fund for emergency purposes with automatic annual contributions; the expenditure of funds from the Taxpayers' Reserve Fund only by 2/3 vote of House and Senate with a specific declaration of facts; a limitation on the amount which may be withdrawn from the reserve in any given year; and a limitation on annual growth in expenditures.
This fall's actions will mark the first step in a four-year process. In order to amend the Constitution, this proposal must receive the affirmative vote of one quarter of the General Court in a Joint Session in two consecutive legislative sessions. It must then receive a majority of votes cast on the issue in the following state election. At the earliest, this amendment will become part of the Constitution at the end of 2006. This Constitutional Amendment will be a legacy for our state's next generation, giving them the security of protected funding mechanisms for essential services regardless of the fiscal climate. This amendment will reduce the impact of inevitable fluctuations in state revenues, allowing state leaders to build the Commonwealth's future and sustain essential services instead of working to salvage our state's basic structures and services from damage. I look forward to working with you in moving this amendment through the Constitutional process over the next four years.
Letter from Speaker Finneran to Representatives
Regarding the Fiscal Situation
[Excerpt]
July 14, 2003
Since 2000, the House and Senate met more than two dozen times in private, the Associated Press reports. The most recent secret session, on June 18, was devoted to the budget the House approved two days later....
Some other states allow executive sessions, national observers told the AP, but they are limited to matters of security or personnel issues. Only in Massachusetts do they hide the budget debate from the taxpayers....
With characteristic candor and arrogance, Finneran explained the practice to reporters after he used closed-door sessions to push last year's tax hike: "The Legislature in its wisdom has decided that the hurly-burly of some of the legislative debate is probably best handled away from you folks, to be perfectly blunt about it."
To be equally blunt about it, many Massachusetts voters assume Finneran and his friends lock the Press and the people out of the room in order to hide the cynical deal-making, the rewarding of friends and punishing of enemies, that make up the seamy underside of the Beacon Hill bosses' legislative agendas.
Finneran has said he wants to improve the Legislature's reputation among the electorate. He should start by treating the voters like adults, fully capable of viewing the "hurly burly" debate of the officials whose salaries they pay and making their own judgments. If you are so proud of the House's work, Mr. Speaker, what are you hiding?
A MetroWest Daily News editorial
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Legislating in secret
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"It is our duty to preserve successful programs." - State Rep. Tim J. Toomey Jr.,
D-Cambridge
No it's not, Representative. Your duty is to abide
by the will of the voters, regardless of your opposition to their will.
"We are not turning our backs on voters. We are simply saying (this) is a program that ought to be protected."
- State Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham
Wrong Senator: You thumbed your nose at the voters ...
again.
"We are a leader across the country with these (two-way)
programs. Why should we turn back the clock?" - State Rep. Marie St.
Fleur, D-Dorchester.
Because 68 percent of the voters ordered you to,
Representative, and under our form of government you're still supposed
to work for us ... after all, we do pay the salary you take and take and
take from us.
"They provide a choice. Not all school districts are going to be able to offer these programs. But for those who do and those who can, this should be a choice."
- State Rep. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham.
The only choice that counts after last November's
landslide vote, Representative, is the choice of 68 percent of the
voters that you just overturned. You and your ilk have miserably
failed your jobs as "representatives" of the people.
So another initiative petition bites the dust in the
Gulag of Taxachusetts, cavalierly reinterpreted because the ruling junta
doesn't like it and never did. Add the voters' mandate for the English
Immersion Law to the scrap heap that includes the Clean Elections Law,
the Charitable Deductions Law and our Income Tax Rollback. Binding
initiative laws promoted and adopted by overwhelming majorities of the
citizenry because of legislative intransigence are now interpreted by
the ruling elite as merely "advisory" and rejected
out-of-hand.
And then they audaciously deny it, paying the
citizens' right mere lip-service.
Meanwhile, the Beacon Hill Machiavelli has announced
that he has no intention of ever stepping down from his throne (remember
"Speaker-for-Life" when his term limit was voted out by
his Flock of Favorites?) and,
while he's at it, he's hatching another constitutional amendment plot.
He threatens: "I'm going to do a lot of organizing across the state for that. I'm going to raise a lot of money for it and I'm going to try to make sure that thing succeeds."
This is a new tactic when Finneran wants to have his
way? No, it just more business-as-usual.
I wonder who his proposed "Taxpayers' Reserve Fund"
will really benefit; it surely won't be taxpayers because he
felt a need to provide that cover.
How will it affect
the Tax Reduction Fund that's supposed to roll surpluses over into tax
cuts? He's been incrementally increasing the ceiling on the automatic trigger for
years; now he wants to just kill it. And how will it effect the
"temporary" income tax rollback rate that was
"frozen" at 5.3 percent allegedly just until the economy
improves and revenue begins over-flowing state coffers again?
No, you can bet that if Finneran dreamed this up the
beneficiaries won't be taxpayers. Despite its high-minded title it will
do anything but benefit taxpayers.
Just remember the high-minded title of the last
constitutional amendment he went to the wall for: "An Act Setting
Compensation for State Legislators" that was disingenuously sold to voters as
allegedly prohibiting legislators from ever voting themselves another
pay raise. Look where it stuck us citizens, and what it provided the
pols.
"The more things change, the more they remain
the same" has become inoperative in our gulag. In Massachusetts,
the more things
remain the same, the worse they become.
|
|
|
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.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Pols say adios to bilingual reform
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Beacon Hill lawmakers substantially weakened the new English immersion law before it even took effect - prompting Gov. Mitt Romney and the law's backers to howl yesterday, that politicians are once again trampling the voters' will.
"Our elected representative seem confused about the way democracy works - the people dictate to them, not the other way around," said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
Approved by 68 percent of voters - more than a 2 to 1 margin - the English immersion law passed just nine months ago in one of the biggest landslides in state history.
The law requires immigrant children to spend one year in English-only classes - replacing the old bilingual system where students sometimes languished for years without learning English.
After campaigning heavily for the law last year, Romney had vetoed a pile of tweaks lawmakers had tucked into their budget.
But in a series of close votes yesterday, lawmakers overturned all five vetoes - carving out exemptions for kindergarteners and students in "two-way" programs that teach both English and another language, usually Spanish.
Two-way programs account for a small percentage of the old bilingual system, with about 2,000 students enrolled in programs in a dozen school districts.
Exemption supporters pointed to a Framingham program in which all of the Latino students passed the 10th grade MCAS English test.
"It is our duty to preserve successful programs," said Rep. Tim J. Toomey Jr., a Cambridge Democrat whose district includes the two-way "Amigos" program.
The mostly Republican opponents charged that two-way programs may be a boon to native kids who want to pick up Spanish, but they're not so much help to others with a critical need to learn English.
"It's using these English learners as teaching tools for the majority students, but it's not serving them," said Rep. Mary S. Rogeness (R-Longmeadow).
In addition to the new exemption for two-way programs, the law already allows the state's 45,000 immigrant students to apply for waivers to be taught in the old-style bilingual programs.
All five House votes squeaked past the two-thirds majority needed to override vetoes. One vote was initially so close - 101 to 50 - that the House clerk was asked to clarify whether the override had passed.
The emotional, two-hour House debate featured several immigrant lawmakers giving speeches in languages other than English, leaving their colleagues scratching their heads.
House Education Chairman Marie St. Fleur rattled through comments in French, French Creole and Spanish, then bellowed: "What you just experienced is exactly what our children experience who do not speak a word of English when they come into our school system."
But even some Democrats expressed queasiness, given the Legislature's recent history of ignoring voter mandates.
"No one has proven the plan they voted for was a failure," said Rep. Phil Travis (D-Rehoboth). "Let's give this a chance to work."
Another overturned veto will allow kindergarteners to skip English immersion and go straight into mainstream classes - with proponents arguing that kids rapidly absorb new languages at that age.
"Segregating them is not the right course of action," St. Fleur (D-Dorchester) said. "In fact, we have recognized in this country that segregation is wrong in other forms."
The Senate debate, in which all five vetoes were overturned by votes of 28-9, was brief but bitter.
"There is not one reason we're doing this other than people in this chamber think they're smarter than the voters," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow). "It's disgusting."
Supporters retorted that Romney opposed the Clean Elections law, which voters approved in 1998 but lawmakers killed last month.
"When it's convenient, the voters spoke," Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) said. "When it's not, well, forget it."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Legislature loosens law on English immersion
Allows some exceptions despite voter referendum
By Raphael Lewis and Michele Kurtz, Globe Staff
A divided Massachusetts Legislature voted yesterday to water down the state's tough new English immersion law, narrowly overriding Governor Mitt Romney's vetoes of five bilingual education measures attached to the 2004 budget.
The most controversial measure, approved by both the House and the Senate, will allow schools to continue and even expand so-called two-way bilingual programs for elementary school students, defying a voter-backed mandate intended to restrict such courses to older children.
Two-way courses, which are offered in about a dozen schools, allow English- and non-English-speaking children to learn each other's languages simultaneously. The programs, though popular, serve only a small fraction of the state's 51,000 limited-English speakers.
But the overrides present the first significant change to the immersion law, something bilingual proponents had vowed to do, even as the ballot initiative swept to passage last November.
Yesterday, parents of students in some of the local two-way programs applauded the Legislature's action.
"You cannot eliminate the strength of foreign nationals that come with a certain language and say:
'Forget what you are. Forget who you are. You have to be English only,' " said Diego
Matho, whose 10-year-old son Felipe attends the Amigos School in Cambridge, a two-way program for students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
Matho, who was born in Uruguay and moved with his family to the United States 10 years ago, has sent two other children to Amigos to help them retain their native Spanish while they learn English.
In Framingham, the Toledo family had also hoped that the district's two-way program would be salvaged.
"I think that is wonderful," said Adrian Toledo, 9, who has attended the two-way program at the Brophy School. "I really want to continue the Spanish program."
Last November, voters passed Question 2 on the state ballot with a 68 percent majority. The new law ended three decades of bilingual education by placing immigrant students in one-year, all-English classes before moving them into mainstream courses.
Despite yesterday's actions, the immersion law remains largely unchanged for the majority of limited-English students who are in bilingual programs and for non-English speakers in districts without bilingual programs who still receive help learning English. Families can apply to have some pupils remain in bilingual education: students older than 10, those who already know sufficient English, or those in special education.
Also, the legislative overrides of Romney's vetoes will allow kindergartners with limited English to be educated in mainstream classrooms, possibly with the assistance of an aide who speaks the students' native tongue.
The bills also mandate basic performance standards and assessment of programs for English learners, verified in part every five years by state education officials who will visit school districts.
The margin of victory in both chambers was slim, with the five measures passing, in some cases, by one or two votes beyond the two-thirds majority necessary to override a gubernatorial veto.
Backers in both houses extolled the legislation in prolonged and sometimes heated debate -- which included short speeches in Spanish, French, and French Creole -- saying the bills would prevent segregation of native English speakers from their immigrant peers and inject common sense into the new law.
"We have recognized in this country that segregation is wrong in other forms, when it comes to black and white and children with special needs," said Representative Marie St. Fleur, Democrat of Boston and chairwoman of the House education committee. "What we offer here is integration for English learners."
Opponents railed against the overrides, saying that the action thwarted the will of Bay State voters.
"No one has proved that the plan voted on is a failure," said Representative Philip Travis of Rehoboth, one of more than a dozen Democrats who voted consistently with the Republican minority yesterday in an attempt to block the bills' passage. "It hasn't even left the blocks."
Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for Romney, criticized the Legislature's actions as the handiwork of elected officials who "seem confused about the way democracy works."
"The people dictate to them, not the other way around," Feddeman said.
Boston School Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant said he would be happy to continue two-way courses, even though the city's school system is prepared to implement the larger English immersion program this fall. "I believe that keeping two-way bilingual education makes sense, because it works, it gets results, it's cost-neutral, and it only affects a small amount of students," said a written statement Payzant issued.
Despite the defeat, critics of bilingual education said they were unlikely to mount a new ballot referendum campaign to undo the Legislature's votes, which will automatically become law.
"Frankly, we can't" do it again, said Carol Sanchez, a Framingham parent of three who helped lead the English for the Children campaign last year. "If these senators and representatives voted for it, and their constituents don't care, there's nothing we can do about it."
But Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, Democrat of Cambridge, denied that the bilingual bills passed yesterday constitute anything more than a "tuning up" of the new English immersion law. What's more, he accused Sanchez and Romney of changing their position on the issue of two-way education, saying that bilingual education opponents had made it clear prior to last November's referendum that Question 2 would only affect the standard curriculum, not experimental programs that show promise.
"After the campaign, they said: `We want everything. It's our way or the highway,' " Barrios said. "Ironically, in their zealousness, they limited the rights of parents to get even more immersion."
Even without the Legislature's override, students currently enrolled in two-way programs would have been allowed to continue. The future of those programs had been in doubt, because nonnative English speakers generally would have had to take a year of English immersion first, leading educators to fear that the programs would eventually die out.
Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur who helped finance last year's referendum effort, said he was not so concerned with two-way courses, but with courses taught solely in Spanish or other non-English languages that he said masquerade as two-way. He said the same about kindergarten courses that would allow classroom aides who speak non-English languages. "So long as students in that category are placed in classes where they are conducting lessons in English, it doesn't sound that serious, [but] bilingual advocates tend to call things by the wrong names," he said. "I would think they might be trying the same game in Massachusetts.
"When you're talking about a change this massive, if a couple percent of the programs are kept the same, that's not so serious," Unz said. "But if they use this as a loophole, that's a very serious problem. You can call a cow a goat, but it's not a goat."
Yesterday was the fifth day of House overrides of Romney's more than 370 vetoes, which he said were needed to bring the state's $22 billion budget into balance. His vetoes rejected about $200 million in spending.
Romney's plan to downsize the Boston Municipal Court was officially scuttled yesterday when Senate Democrats overturned his veto with a 25-12 vote. The House and Senate also restored $3 million in spending for psychiatric services at Worcester State Hospital, while the Senate restored $2 million for universal school breakfast programs.
Anand Vaishnav of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Material from the Associated Press was also used.
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Lawmakers save 2-way bilingual programs
By Michael Kunzelman, Staff Writer
The state Legislature voted yesterday to preserve two-way bilingual education programs, which allow Framingham and other school districts to teach immigrant children in both English and their native tongue.
Last fall, voters approved a ballot question that scrapped the state's 30-year-old bilingual education system, including two-way bilingual programs, in favor of English immersion classes.
Lawmakers approved a plan to spare two-way bilingual programs from elimination, but Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed the proposal last month.
Yesterday, however, the state Senate and House of Representatives both narrowly voted to override Romney's budget veto.
The Legislature also voted yesterday to allow immigrant students to enroll in mainstream classes instead of English immersion classes, as last year's ballot question would have required.
Supporters of the ballot question, the so-called Unz initiative, accused legislators of ignoring the will of voters.
"As with most ballot questions, this needs to be given the chance to run its course," said state Rep. Stephen
LeDuc, D-Marlborough, who voted to sustain Romney's veto. "I don't believe we have had that opportunity yet."
The ballot question, sponsored by California businessman Ron Unz, would require students whose first language isn't English to enroll in "sheltered English immersion classrooms" where their native language isn't spoken.
But the initiative's opponents said parents need the choice afforded by two-way bilingual programs, where the classes are composed of an equal number of immigrant students and children whose first language is English.
"Two-way immersion programs are one path," said state Rep. Deborah
Blumer, D-Framingham. "They provide a choice. Not all school districts are going to be able to offer these programs. But for those who do and those who can, this should be a choice."
The Framingham public schools are one of about a dozen districts, including Boston, Cambridge and Somerville, that offer two-way bilingual programs.
"Our two-way program is well-proven," said Framingham schools Superintendent Mark Smith. "I'm happy it's going to be able to continue. I'm not sure what our options would have been if the governor's veto had held."
Blumer has a granddaughter in fourth grade who has been enrolled in Framingham's two-way program since kindergarten.
"She and her classmates are all passing the MCAS exam," she said.
State Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham, rejected the notion that lawmakers turned their backs on voters by overriding Romney's vetoes.
"It's not about repealing the ballot question," he said. "The ballot question stands. In my 19 years, I don't think I've ever seen a ballot question that was passed that wasn't in one way or another refined by the Legislature."
The House voted 109 to 44 to override Romney's veto against two-way bilingual programs, barely mustering the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The Senate voted 28 to 9 in favor of the same override.
The list of lawmakers who supported Romney's veto included LeDuc, state Reps. Susan Pope, R-Wayland, Thomas Stanley, D-Waltham, Karyn
Polito, R-Shrewsbury, and state Sen. Guy Glodis, D-Worcester.
"We have 30 years of failure with the current bilingual system. Everybody knows this," Glodis said.
Magnani said the two-way programs are proven successes, as evidenced by the waiting lists that many of them have.
"I don't know of a voter who, when they voted for this (ballot) question, knew about the Framingham two-way bilingual program and voted 'no' on it," he said. "We are not turning our backs on voters. We are simply saying (this) is a program that ought to be protected."
Since last Monday, the Legislature has overridden dozens of Romney's vetoes. Voting on veto overrides is expected to resume tomorrow.
Romney vetoed $201 million in state spending last month, claiming the Legislature failed to pass a balanced budget.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Legislature overrides Romney on bilingual education
By Ken Maguire
Exemptions to the voter-approved "English immersion" law were preserved Monday when the Legislature overrode Gov. Mitt Romney's vetoes, sparking criticism that lawmakers are thwarting the will of the public.
Nearly 70 percent of voters last fall approved the law, which banned multiyear bilingual education programs and replaced them with one-year, English immersion classes intended to quickly move non-English speaking students into regular classes.
The House and Senate in their budget amended the law to exempt "two-way" bilingual programs which teach students in two languages and to give parents of immigrant children more options in choosing programs.
Romney, a Republican who made English immersion a centerpiece of his campaign, vetoed the exemptions. The House and Senate narrowly overrode those vetoes Monday to protect the two-way programs, which now are exempt from the law.
"Our elected representatives seem confused about the way democracy works," Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said. "People dictate to them, not the other way around. It is disappointing that even before it was given a chance to work, the Legislature chose to undo the will of the voters."
Supporters of the two-way bilingual programs say they help immigrant students to learn English and help English speakers to learn a second language.
"We are a leader across the country with these (two-way) programs," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur, the House chairwoman of the Education Committee. "Why should we turn back the clock?"
About 2,000 students in 12 districts are enrolled in two-way programs, such the K-8 "Amigos" program in the Cambridge Public Schools, where more than 300 students study in English and Spanish, alternating languages each week.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow, said by voting for the override lawmakers are saying voters "aren't smart enough to make a decision for themselves."
"They have been privately running around this building saying that," Lees said. "That is disgusting."
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, disagreed.
"Two-way immersion wasn't what that ballot question was about," Barrios said. "The highest scoring children who are English language learners ... are those children in two-way immersion programs."
Vetoes can be overridden only with a two-thirds majority. Five overrides preserving two-way bilingual programs and related parental rights and program accountability passed the Senate on 28-9 votes. The House had similarly close votes.
One override allows parents of kindergarten-age immigrant students to enroll their child in a mainstream class instead of being sent to a one-year immersion language class as required under the law.
"That is how I learned English in the United States," said St. Fleur, a native of Haiti. "Segregating them is not the right course of action."
In both chambers, the overrides passed on the strength of the heavily Democratic majorities.
Monday was the fifth day of House overrides of Romney's more than 370 vetoes, which he said were needed to bring the state's $22 billion budget into balance. His vetoes rejected about $200 million in spending.
House Speaker Tom Finneran said before formal debate Monday that about $72 million has been restored. He says override votes may continue into the fall.
Also Monday, Romney's plan to downsize the Boston Municipal Court was officially scuttled when Senate Democrats overturned his veto with a 25-12 vote.
The House and Senate also restored $3 million in spending for psychiatric services at Worcester State Hospital.
The Senate restored $2 million for universal school breakfast programs.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
House Speaker Finneran plans to keep his post
Announcement targets rumors
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
Squelching rumors that he plans to relinquish his post, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said yesterday that he plans to complete his current term as speaker and run for reelection to the position in 2005.
"I am not stepping down," Finneran, 53, a Democrat, told the Associated Press. "My plan is to run for speaker in January of '05, to be elected as speaker in January of '05."
He's been talked about as a potential university president, a candidate for mayor of Boston, or even a US Senate candidate.
Many rank-and-file House members have engaged in a parlor game of sorts in recent days, trading gossip and snippets of intelligence that had Finneran looking to leave the job he's held since 1996. Such talk has intensified as Finneran has faced trouble pushing through a bill that would give him expanded power to set extra pay for his lieutenants.
Governor Mitt Romney vetoed that measure, and Finneran has been unable to find the two-thirds majority that is needed to override him. If Finneran is unable to do so, it would constitute an exceedingly rare defeat in the House for the powerful speaker.
If he wins reelection to his Mattapan-based seat in 2004 and then the speakership in 2005, Finneran would serve the entirety of Romney's four-year term. They have had a testy relationship in recent months, with Finneran accusing the governor of misleading the public and Romney alleging that the speaker is too fond of the status quo.
But Finneran said he has no plans to leave his job. Yesterday, he sent his colleagues a letter outlining some major priorities for the remainder of this term, including approval of a proposed constitutional amendment that would automatically direct future budget surpluses to a rainy-day fund. Such an amendment could not become law until 2006.
"I have a very, very busy fall agenda. One of the items will actually take three years of effort on my part and on the part of the members," Finneran said. "Everyone speculates about my future. Don't worry about my future. I love what I do. I've got the best job in the world."
State Representative Byron Rushing, who challenged Finneran for the speaker's job in January, said Finneran probably was driven to declare for reelection to stamp out developing succession campaigns.
Under a term-limit measure abolished by Finneran loyalists in 2001, he would have had to step down from the speaker's post at the end of 2004.
"He wanted to cut this off, because it could become problematic for his leadership," said Rushing, a South End Democrat, who has not decided whether to challenge Finneran again.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Finneran will run for speaker in '05
House official lays out legislative agenda
Steve LeBlanc
House Speaker Thomas Finneran said Monday he plans to serve out the rest of his term as speaker and run again for the powerful seat in 2005.
Finneran also warned of a spending gap of up to $2 billion for the 2005 fiscal year and said lawmakers should be prepared to pass a "zero-based" budget next year, with even more cuts to state services.
"I am not stepping down," Finneran told the Associated Press on Monday. "My plan is to run for speaker in January of '05, to be elected as speaker in January of '05. ... I have a very, very busy fall agenda. One of the items will actually take three years of effort on my part and on the part of the members."
The Boston Democrat outlined that agenda in a letter to lawmakers on Monday.
Among Finneran's goals for the second half of the year are: a response to the state's affordable housing crunch; a transportation bond bill; a courthouse bond bill; changes to the state's school building fund and revamping Medicaid.
He said the House will make another effort at passing judicial sentencing guidelines, with the goal of "refining our system to create an equality of fair punishment across the board."
Finneran also said he will push for an amendment to the state constitution requiring the establishment of a permanent "rainy day" fund.
The amendment would automatically funnel tax dollars into the savings fund and would require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate before it could be withdrawn.
The proposed amendment would require the support of 25 percent of two successive sittings of the state Legislature before it could be put on the state ballot, where it would need a majority vote. The earliest it could take effect would be the end of 2006, he said.
Finneran, who fought to build up the rainy day fund during the flush 1990s, said he will throw the weight of the office and his fund-raising prowess behind an effort to persuade lawmakers and voters to back the initiative.
The state was able to sock away more than $2 billion in the rainy day fund during the 1990s. That money has helped Massachusetts ride through the current fiscal crunch.
"I'm going to do a lot of organizing across the state for that. I'm going to raise a lot of money for it and I'm going to try to make sure that thing succeeds. I think it's a very, very important part ... of our financial infrastructure," Finneran said.
Finneran also made dire predictions that the state's current fiscal troubles show few signs of abating and said lawmakers should steel themselves for what he called a "zero-based" budget for the 2005 fiscal year.
A zero-based budget "is the presumption that items which are not critical to the well-being of the Commonwealth are no longer funded in the budget," he wrote.
Finneran's name has also routinely surfaced as a possible candidate for mayor of Boston. Finneran said Monday he has no plans to run for that office.
"Everyone speculates about my future. Don't worry about my future. I love what I do. I've got the best job in the world," he told the AP.
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Editorial
Legislating in secret
Adopting a state budget is the most important job our legislators do. They are dividing up $22 billion of our money, deciding which programs thrive and which wither away, how much more we'll have to give in taxes or fees to pay for the decisions our representatives make.
Considering how important the budget deliberations are, they are terribly hard to follow. There are three versions -- one each from the governor, the House and Senate -- that go through all kinds of iterations between proposal and enactment. The process is long, the numbers mind-numbing. Even people with a direct interest in specific line-items often can't figure out if they've won or lost until the debate is long over.
But what's most maddening about this maddening process is that when the rubber hits the road, when our representatives are ready to debate the tough choices we elected them to make, they hide behind closed doors.
Since 2000, the House and Senate met more than two dozen times in private, the Associated Press reports. The most recent secret session, on June 18, was devoted to the budget the House approved two days later. At previous gatherings, lawmakers hashed out last $1.1 billion tax package and state support for a Fenway Park reconstruction plan.
Other legislative bodies allow closed caucuses, in which members of one party can plot strategy without members of the other party listening in. But these are "caucuses of the full body," as Speaker Tom Finneran calls them. Once all the elected members are inside, the doors are closed, blocked with velvet ropes and court officers. There are no minutes or public records kept. The only ones locked out are the public and the Press.
Some other states allow executive sessions, national observers told the AP, but they are limited to matters of security or personnel issues. Only in Massachusetts do they hide the budget debate from the taxpayers.
Massachusetts earned a reputation for open government by denying municipal boards the right to hold closed-door sessions except for specified reasons. The Open Meeting Law requires even the lowliest of town boards to post its meetings in advance and allow any citizen to sit in on the discussion.
The problem is that the Legislature, which enacted the Open Meeting Law in 1975, specifically exempted itself, its committees and commissions.
With characteristic candor and arrogance, Finneran explained the practice to reporters after he used closed-door sessions to push last year's tax hike: "The Legislature in its wisdom has decided that the hurly-burly of some of the legislative debate is probably best handled away from you folks, to be perfectly blunt about it."
To be equally blunt about it, many Massachusetts voters assume Finneran and his friends lock the Press and the people out of the room in order to hide the cynical deal-making, the rewarding of friends and punishing of enemies, that make up the seamy underside of the Beacon Hill bosses' legislative agendas.
Finneran has said he wants to improve the Legislature's reputation among the electorate. He should start by treating the voters like adults, fully capable of viewing the "hurly burly" debate of the officials whose salaries they pay and making their own judgments. If you are so proud of the House's work, Mr. Speaker, what are you hiding?
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
|