|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Make a contribution to support
CLT's work by clicking the button above
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
Barbara Anderson's Great Moments |
Follow CLT on Twitter |
CLT UPDATE
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Override Day on Beacon Hill of
Greed
|
State senators could see their pay rise
dramatically under a little-noticed provision in the pay
raise bill and a proposed rules change that together would
allow the lawmakers to collect stipends for holding down as
many as three leadership positions.
Under current rules, lawmakers receive their
base salary of $62,547 plus a stipend if they hold a
leadership position. The current stipends range from $7,500
to $15,000, but no lawmaker is allowed to pocket more than
$15,000 no matter how many leadership positions they hold.
The proposed pay raise legislation, which
has been vetoed by Gov. Charlie Baker and is coming up for
override votes in the House and Senate on Thursday,
dramatically increases legislative stipends, eliminates the
$15,000 cap, and allows lawmakers to be compensated for two
leadership positions. New Senate rules, which also come up
for a vote Thursday, would allow senators to be compensated
for three leadership positions, while proposed House rules
would limit members of that body to just one stipend.
“There’s no limit to their greed,” said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation. “How low can these people stoop? We’re not
going to let anybody forget about this. They may think
they’re going to get away with it but we won’t let them.
This whole thing stunk to high heaven from the beginning.”
...
Under the proposed Senate rules, a senator
could collect stipends for a post in leadership, a
chairmanship, and a vice chairmanship. Of the 30 Democratic
senators returning from last term, 28 held at least two of
those positions. Of the 28, 14 held posts that would pay
them three stipends if they were appointed to the same
positions this term.
Four senators – Sens. Barbara L’Italien,
Thomas McGee, James Timilty, and Jennifer Flanagan –
received two stipends each in 2016. The stipends were $7,500
apiece, bringing them to the $15,000 cap. If they retain the
same positions this year and the Senate rules change is
approved, their stipend pay would rise to $30,000.
CommonWealth Magazine
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Some senators in line for even bigger payday
Overlooked clause in bill, rules change could hike salaries
dramatically
The Senate would limit additional
compensation to three stipends, allow roll calls to be
conducted with electronic voting, and give more
responsibility to its climate change committee under the
proposed rules package scheduled for debate on Thursday.
The bundle (S 8) makes 12 changes to the
rules governing Senate sessions and procedures, and senators
have filed 18 amendments seeking additional changes....
On the same day as the Senate could vote to
override the governor's veto of legislative pay raises, the
Senate will debate a new rule, 11E, that would restrict
senators from receiving more than one stipend for serving as
a committee vice chair, and would prohibit senators from
receiving compensation for more than three leadership
positions....
Among the proposed joint rule changes (S 9)
is the creation of committees on export development, and
marijuana....
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Stipends, electronic voting addressed in Senate rules
package
Even as the Massachusetts Senate is likely
to take up the governor’s veto of an $18 million legislative
pay raise bill, it will consider a host of its own rules
changes.
But this is what passes for “reform” in the
Senate. If approved, henceforth senators would be limited to
accepting only three pay-boosting leadership
stipends. Yes, really!
The dirty little secret of Senate
compensation is that with only 40 members and some 27 joint
committee chairmanships and at least a half dozen
Senate-only committee chairs needed, well, everyone gets
some sort of “special” stipend for being a chair, a vice
chair or a member of the leadership “team.” That after
boosting their own pay the senators might consider limiting
the number of bonuses might indicate that even they are
capable of embarrassment.
You never know when some pesky reporter will
start doing the math.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Senate’s rules ‘reform’
Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg said
today he expects a vote to override Gov. Charlie Baker’s
veto of a polarizing pay-raise package for public officials
will happen this week and said it will likely pass both
houses in the legislature.
“Both houses had sufficient votes on the
main question, so assuming that holds, the answer would be
‘yes,’” Rosenberg told Herald Radio when asked whether the
governor’s veto will be shot down....
The house is set to vote on the veto
override first, before the Senate takes up the issue,
Rosenberg said. If the veto is overridden, the Amherst
Democrat noted the increases will go into effect immediately
because the assignments for the committee leaders who would
see a change in pay will be handed out in the coming weeks.
Baker vetoed the legislation, slamming the
bill and the speed at which it was passed as “fiscally
irresponsible” and a “hasty process.”
The governor has said he will not accept his
increased salary and that his office has fielded hundreds of
phone calls from taxpayers upset at the pay bump
legislation.
Asked whether his office had seen similar
call volume, Rosenberg offered a quick “no” before wrapping
up the interview, saying, “have a wonderful day, everyone,
go Pats.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Senate prez expects lawmakers to override pay raise veto
this week
The governor would get not just a $35,000
salary increase but also a $65,000 housing allowance under
the pay raise proposal that Massachusetts legislative
leaders are rushing to put into place this week — measures
that Governor Charlie Baker intends to forgo.
Baker vetoed the pay raise proposal last
week, but lawmakers are likely to have the votes to override
the veto and push the package into law this week....
“Governor Baker vetoed the pay raise for
elected officials because the proposal is not fiscally
responsible and the administration is committed to
protecting taxpayers,” said Lizzy Guyton, the governor’s
communications director. “While Governor Baker and
Lieutenant Governor [Karyn] Polito are hopeful the veto will
not be overridden, they will not accept any additional
compensation as a result of this proposal.” ...
While Baker plans not to accept the housing
allowance, future governors would be free to add it to the
$185,000 salary proposed in the pay raise bill.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Pay raise bill includes $65,000 housing allowance for
governor
On the eve of pivotal votes, three of the
state's six statewide public officials have so far refused
to say whether they will accept the significant pay raises
authorized under a bill vetoed last week by Gov. Charlie
Baker.
The House and Senate, both controlled by
overwhelming Democratic majorities, are preparing to
override Baker's veto on Thursday, which would put the
raises for lawmakers, judges and the six constitutional
officers into effect immediately. Baker has called the
raises "fiscally irresponsible."
Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito have already
said they would decline the pay hike, while Auditor Suzanne
Bump, a Democrat, said she would accept the raise that would
increase her salary from $140,607 to $165,000 a year.
Attorney General Maura Healey, Treasurer
Deborah Goldberg and Secretary of State William Galvin have
so far deferred comment or a decision until after the fate
of the bill is decided, though Galvin told the News Service
this week that the size of his raise - a $28,598 bump to
$165,000 - "doesn't trouble me."
Earlier in the week, the Massachusetts
Republican Party said Healey, Goldberg and Galvin had a
chance to "save taxpayers from this abuse" by coming out
publicly against the raise, but all three are still holding
back on making their intentions known....
In another statement on Wednesday, MassGOP
Kirsten Hughes said said the silence from the three
Democrats was "deafening."
"Taxpayers have been waiting for weeks to
see whether AG Healey, Secretary Galvin, and Treasurer
Goldberg will stand with them. But it seems they'd rather
duck the tough questions and allow the Legislature to go
forward with this underhanded scheme that benefits them,
despite public outcry," Hughes said....
A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts
Democratic Party last week called the pay raises
"reasonable," and defended lawmakers against criticism for
voting to increase their own salaries.
"The Massachusetts legislature has helped
grow a state economy that is the envy of the nation and
create public schools that are? among? the best in the
world. The legislature's pledge to protect the most
vulnerable among us is unquestioned," party spokeswoman
Emily Fitzmaurice said. "As a commonwealth, we need to
recognize their commitment. Over the past few weeks we have
watched while a parade of billionaires nominated by
President Trump applied to run agencies they seek to
dismantle. That's what happens when we ceaselessly denigrate
government and public service."
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
GOP knocks top Dems for silence over pay raises
Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg
sounded a note of confidence yesterday that the
Legislature’s controversial pay raise package should be law
by week’s end, despite a gubernatorial veto and continued
gripes to lawmakers, one of whom called it the “No. 1 topic”
in his district.
The House and Senate both have formal
sessions scheduled for tomorrow, and several lawmakers have
said they expect a vote to override Gov. Charlie Baker’s
veto of the pay hike bill to emerge then.
Rosenberg, in an appearance on Boston Herald
Radio, pointed to the margins Democrats built in both
chambers to pass the package — 116-44 in the House and 31-9
in the Senate — when asked if he expected the veto to be
shot down.
“Assuming that holds, the answer would be
yes,” Rosenberg said....
State Rep. Russell Holmes, a Mattapan
Democrat who voted for the measure, said he’s heard a number
of “angry” complaints from his constituents, many of whom he
said blasted the difference in pay the hikes would create
between leadership and rank-and-file lawmakers.
“I have not changed my mind yet,” Holmes
said. “But when I’m out in the district, it is the No. 1
topic.”
The Boston Herald
Monday, February 1, 2017
Rosenberg: We’ve got votes for pay hike veto
Attorney General Maura Healey, who’s
repeatedly declined to weigh in on a controversial pay raise
package, stands to benefit beyond her own proposed $44,418
pay bump: Her partner, an appellate court judge, would also
get a big hike, increasing their household income by almost
$70,000.
Associate appeals court justice Gabrielle R.
Wolohojian, who currently makes $165,087, would see her pay
eventually rise to more than $190,000 under the
controversial pay raise bill that, despite getting vetoed by
Gov. Charlie Baker, is expected to re-emerge today in the
House and Senate for an override vote.
Wolohojian, who owns the $2 million
Charlestown townhouse she shares with Healey, is one of two
dozen appellate judges who’ll see their salary hiked under
the legislation. But her inclusion is notable given its
impact on Healey, who has yet to say publicly if she
supports the package.
The bill would elevate Healey’s pay to
$175,000 a year, a 34 percent jump from her current $130,582
salary....
“AG Healey’s silence on the Democrats’ pay
hike bill is all the more troubling given that her household
would benefit from double-dipping under the bill,” MassGOP
chairwoman Kirsten Hughes said. “Healey owes taxpayers an
answer.” ...
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Maura Healey mum as AG, partner in line for $70G raise
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
This morning at 11:00 the House will hold a formal session to bring up Gov.
Baker's override of their obscene pay grab. If it's overridden in the
House it will move over to the Senate. Both votes will require a roll
call, so we'll know how every Representative and Senator votes on enriching
themselves as their first order of business in this the 190th session of the
alleged Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
As another day passed more filth has been exposed within this despicably selfish
scam. Now Senators can hold two "leadership" positions with
accompanying "stipends" ranging from at least $7,500 in additional pay.
Today the Senate is expected to also change that rule each Senator can hold
three positions that pay them additionally even more!
There are only 40 members in the entire Senate, but there are at least 38
committees, each with a chairman and vice-chairman, and 10 leadership positions.
As if that's not enough, this Senate Rule intends to add a couple more
committees with chairmen and vice-chairmen, creating committees on export
development, and marijuana.
A new Committee on Marijuana? I think too many in the Legislature have
been inhaling too much of the weed. That's the only excuse they'll have if
they choose to override the Governor's veto and stuff their pockets with our
money. "Hey man, I didn't mean to screw you taxpayers. I mean
really, dude, did I really vote that way?"
|
Watch House Session Live Video
Session begins at 11:00 AM |
 |
|
Watch Senate Session Live Video
Session begins at Noon |
|
We'll have more to report later. And we'll have all
the roll call votes to publicize. Senate President Rosenberg
claimed the Legislature needs more cash to attract competent candidates to
run for office. If they manage to pass this obscenity, maybe we'll
finally find some.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
CommonWealth Magazine
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Some senators in line for even bigger payday
Overlooked clause in bill, rules change could
hike salaries dramatically
By Jack Sullivan
State senators could see their pay rise
dramatically under a little-noticed provision in
the pay raise bill and a proposed rules change
that together would allow the lawmakers to
collect stipends for holding down as many as
three leadership positions.
Under current rules, lawmakers receive their
base salary of $62,547 plus a stipend if they
hold a leadership position. The current stipends
range from $7,500 to $15,000, but no lawmaker is
allowed to pocket more than $15,000 no matter
how many leadership positions they hold.
The proposed pay raise legislation, which has
been vetoed by Gov. Charlie Baker and is coming
up for override votes in the House and Senate on
Thursday, dramatically increases legislative
stipends, eliminates the $15,000 cap, and allows
lawmakers to be compensated for two leadership
positions. New Senate rules, which also come up
for a vote Thursday, would allow senators to be
compensated for three leadership positions,
while proposed House rules would limit members
of that body to just one stipend.
“There’s no limit to their greed,” said Chip
Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation. “How low can these people
stoop? We’re not going to let anybody forget
about this. They may think they’re going to get
away with it but we won’t let them. This whole
thing stunk to high heaven from the beginning.”
The changes could have a major impact on the pay
of several senators. Sen. Mark Montigny of New
Bedford, for example, last year collected his
then-base salary of $60,233 plus a $15,000
stipend for serving as assistant majority
leader, bringing his total stipend-and-salary
pay to $75,233. He received no extra
compensation for serving as chair of the Senate
Rules Committee and vice chair of the Joint
Committee on Health Care Financing.
But if he retains the same posts this year,
Montigny’s stipend pay would rise dramatically
under the proposed pay raise legislation and
rules change. He would collect a $35,000 stipend
for serving as assistant majority leader, a
$30,000 stipend for chairing the Rules
Committee, and a $15,000 stipend for his vice
chairmanship of health care financing, bringing
his total compensation in the form of salary and
stipends to $142,547, including the 4.2 percent
hike in base salary lawmakers received in
December under a constitutional process set by
voters.
Montigny headed the temporary committee that
drafted the rules changes that will be taken up
for a vote in the Senate on Thursday. Montigny
did not return a call for comment.
Under the proposed Senate rules, a senator could
collect stipends for a post in leadership, a
chairmanship, and a vice chairmanship. Of the 30
Democratic senators returning from last term, 28
held at least two of those positions. Of the 28,
14 held posts that would pay them three stipends
if they were appointed to the same positions
this term.
Four senators – Sens. Barbara L’Italien, Thomas
McGee, James Timilty, and Jennifer Flanagan –
received two stipends each in 2016. The stipends
were $7,500 apiece, bringing them to the $15,000
cap. If they retain the same positions this year
and the Senate rules change is approved, their
stipend pay would rise to $30,000.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester
has introduced an amendment to the rules bill
that would allow senators to receive a maximum
of two stipends. Tarr, who is in line for a
$60,000 stipend as minority leader, did not
return a call for comment.
A spokesman for Baker did not comment on the
potential for double- and triple-dipping in the
Senate, but emphasized that the governor and Lt.
Gov. Karyn Polito will not accept the pay raises
they are slated to receive in the legislation
coming up for override votes on Thursday.
The Legislature’s override votes can only go up
or down with no changes, meaning the change in
pay for extra posts will survive if the veto is
overridden. The House will take up a package of
rules on Thursday that will limit its members to
one position stipend while the Senate will vote
on a proposed change in its rules to allow
members to be paid for as many as three
positions.
The controversial pay bill, which also hikes
salaries of constitutional officers as well as
judges, clerks, and registers, and many of their
assistants, raises stipends for committee and
leadership posts to $5,200 for previously unpaid
vice chairmanships to $65,000 for Ways and Means
chairs of both branches. Other chairman, vice
chairman, and leadership posts that had been
paid between $7,500 to $15,000 would double. In
addition, lawmakers would see their expense
stipends rise from $15,000 for those living less
than 50 miles from the State House to $20,000
for those living beyond, although no
documentation is required for the expenses.
Under the bill, the speaker and Senate president
would receive an $80,000 stipend above the
legislative base salary of $62,547. The bill
also raises constitutional officers’ salaries to
$165,000 for lieutenant governor, auditor, and
secretary of state, a roughly $30,000 increase
for each; $175,000 for attorney general and
state treasurer, more than a $45,000 hike for
each; and $185,000 plus a $65,000 housing
allowance for the governor, who currently earns
$151,800. The measure would also give up to a
$25,000 pay increase spread over four years to
all judges and most court clerks, despite a
salary hike for that branch just three years
ago.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Stipends, electronic voting addressed in Senate
rules package
By Colin A. Young
The Senate would limit additional compensation
to three stipends, allow roll calls to be
conducted with electronic voting, and give more
responsibility to its climate change committee
under the proposed rules package scheduled for
debate on Thursday.
The bundle (S 8) makes 12 changes to the rules
governing Senate sessions and procedures, and
senators have filed 18 amendments seeking
additional changes.
The Senate experimented with electronic voting
last summer to speed up the process of
overriding Gov. Charlie Baker's budget vetoes.
The proposes rules would allow further
experimentation with electronic voting, which
the House has used for many years to record its
roll call votes.
Under a proposed new rule 26D, the Senate
Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change
would become a required Senate destination for
any legislation dealing with climate change,
"including but not limited to carbon emissions,
greenhouse gas emissions and renewable
energies."
Sen. Marc Pacheco, who has chaired the Senate
committee since it was created about a decade
ago, said the rules change will allow the
committee to ensure that any legislation that
could have an effect on climate change is
consistent with the requirements of the Global
Warming Solutions Act. The GWSA requires
Massachusetts to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by
2020, and reduce them 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050.
"It is extremely important to make sure whatever
we're doing is consistent with our Global
Warming Solutions Act and, if we're making
decisions in the future relative to anything to
do with greenhouse gas emission policies, that
those policies ought to be reviewed before they
continue on along the legislative pathway to get
them enacted into law," Pacheco said. "And if
they are not consistent, then we will need to
see if we can work out ways to make them
consistent with the overall statute."
Pacheco said the committee has always had the
authority to request, receive or draft bills,
and said the rules change does not expand the
scope of the committee's "general power." The
committee would be sent bills after their first
reading in the Senate, which means it could
review bills that have already been given
approval from a joint committee to ensure they
comply with the GWSA requirements.
The composition of the Senate Committee on
Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets
would expand by one member, from six to seven,
under the proposed rules. A Senate official said
the change is intended to give the committee an
odd number of members to avoid tie votes.
On the same day as the Senate could vote to
override the governor's veto of legislative pay
raises, the Senate will debate a new rule, 11E,
that would restrict senators from receiving more
than one stipend for serving as a committee vice
chair, and would prohibit senators from
receiving compensation for more than three
leadership positions.
The proposed rule package also makes other
changes to Senate proceedings, like adding
conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth and
nursing to the list of reasons a senator may be
allowed to vote from her or his office,
eliminating the use of pairs in Senate votes,
easing the requirement that senators stand while
speaking by adding the phrase "as able,"
requiring a roll call vote to consider several
amendments in one vote, and requiring senators
to distribute copies of their proposed
amendments if requested.
Sen. Mark Montigny, who led the temporary rules
committee that presented the proposed rules, did
not return calls from the News Service on
Tuesday.
Among the proposed changes to be offered by
Senate Republicans are rules that would prohibit
anything from being considered during informal
sessions that had not gone through the public
hearing process and that would require all
matters taken scheduled for consideration during
informal sessions be posted on the Legislature's
website for at least 24 hours.
Such changes appear intended to block the
Legislature from engaging in a repeat of the
process used to pass a delay in the
implementation of the new marijuana law in
December, which drew criticism from some corners
for the speed and lack of notice given before it
was pushed through the House and Senate. On the
other hand, few legislators even attend informal
sessions, where any legislators has the power to
prevent a bill from advancing.
Republican senators also want all committee
votes posted online and a deadline of March 31
to notify cities and towns how much local aid
they can expect in the coming fiscal year. Some
of the rules changes sought by Republicans have
been offered before and rejected.
The Senate is also expected to debate the joint
rules, which govern Senate-House relations, on
Thursday.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Stanley Rosenberg announced last year that they
had reached an agreement to preserve the
existing joint committee structure and avert the
type of rules fight between the branches that
bogged down the beginning of the last session.
Among the proposed joint rule changes (S 9) is
the creation of committees on export
development, and marijuana, moving the deadline
for joint House-Senate committees to report out
legislation up by more than a month to Feb. 1 in
the second year of the session, and allowing
bills to be reported to the chamber of their
origination unless otherwise agreed by the
committee that vetted the bills.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 2, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Senate’s rules ‘reform’
Even as the Massachusetts Senate is likely to
take up the governor’s veto of an $18 million
legislative pay raise bill, it will consider a
host of its own rules changes.
But this is what passes for “reform” in the
Senate. If approved, henceforth senators would
be limited to accepting only three
pay-boosting leadership stipends. Yes, really!
The dirty little secret of Senate compensation
is that with only 40 members and some 27 joint
committee chairmanships and at least a half
dozen Senate-only committee chairs needed, well,
everyone gets some sort of “special” stipend for
being a chair, a vice chair or a member of the
leadership “team.” That after boosting their own
pay the senators might consider limiting the
number of bonuses might indicate that even they
are capable of embarrassment.
You never know when some pesky reporter will
start doing the math.
One of those Senate-only committees is Global
Warming and Climate Change, because, well, you
just can’t have too many committees. But under
the rules “reform” on the docket for today, the
indefatigable Sen. Marc Pacheco, who has chaired
the committee for more than a decade (and don’t
we all feel safer from global warming already?)
is making a bit of a power grab, writing into
the rules that any legislation that deals with
climate change “including but not limited to
carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and
renewable energies” will pass through his hands.
“It is extremely important to make sure whatever
we’re doing is consistent with our Global
Warming Solutions Act and, if we’re making
decisions in the future relative to anything to
do with greenhouse gas emission policies, that
those policies ought to be reviewed before they
continue on along the legislative pathway to get
them enacted into law,” Pacheco told State House
News Service.
Yes, on Beacon Hill there’s no such thing as too
much power — especially over hot air.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Senate prez expects lawmakers to override pay
raise veto this week
By Chris Villani
Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg said today
he expects a vote to override Gov. Charlie
Baker’s veto of a polarizing pay-raise package
for public officials will happen this week and
said it will likely pass both houses in the
legislature.
“Both houses had sufficient votes on the main
question, so assuming that holds, the answer
would be ‘yes,’” Rosenberg told Herald Radio
when asked whether the governor’s veto will be
shot down.
Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo are
in line for a substantial increase of nearly 50
percent to $142,500 and other legislative
leaders, executive branch members, and judges
will also see a pay bump.
The house is set to vote on the veto override
first, before the Senate takes up the issue,
Rosenberg said. If the veto is overridden, the
Amherst Democrat noted the increases will go
into effect immediately because the assignments
for the committee leaders who would see a change
in pay will be handed out in the coming weeks.
Baker vetoed the legislation, slamming the bill
and the speed at which it was passed as
“fiscally irresponsible” and a “hasty process.”
The governor has said he will not accept his
increased salary and that his office has fielded
hundreds of phone calls from taxpayers upset at
the pay bump legislation.
Asked whether his office had seen similar call
volume, Rosenberg offered a quick “no” before
wrapping up the interview, saying, “have a
wonderful day, everyone, go Pats.”
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Pay raise bill includes $65,000 housing
allowance for governor
By Frank Phillips
The governor would get not just a $35,000 salary
increase but also a $65,000 housing allowance
under the pay raise proposal that Massachusetts
legislative leaders are rushing to put into
place this week — measures that Governor Charlie
Baker intends to forgo.
Baker vetoed the pay raise proposal last week,
but lawmakers are likely to have the votes to
override the veto and push the package into law
this week.
Baker aides made clear Tuesday that the
governor, who has a $1 million-plus home in
Swampscott — nearly 4,000 square feet with six
bedrooms and four baths — will not accept the
housing allowance.
“Governor Baker vetoed the pay raise for elected
officials because the proposal is not fiscally
responsible and the administration is committed
to protecting taxpayers,” said Lizzy Guyton, the
governor’s communications director. “While
Governor Baker and Lieutenant Governor [Karyn]
Polito are hopeful the veto will not be
overridden, they will not accept any additional
compensation as a result of this proposal.”
Massachusetts is one of only a half-dozen states
that don’t currently provide a gubernatorial
housing allowance. The proposed perk — which
governors could use for any purpose, including
padding their income — has been overshadowed by
the huge pay raises planned for legislative
leaders, their leadership team, and the state’s
constitutional officers. While Baker plans not
to accept the housing allowance, future
governors would be free to add it to the
$185,000 salary proposed in the pay raise bill.
Legislative leaders said they included the
housing allowance — a nearly one third boost in
the governor’s new salary — because it was
recommended by the commission they created to
suggest new salary levels for lawmakers as well
as the secretary of state, treasurer, attorney
general, auditor, governor, and lieutenant
governor.
The 2014 commission report, after recommending a
salary hike from $151,000 to $185,000 for the
governor, added this language:
“As Massachusetts is one of only six states that
supplies neither a governor’s residence nor a
housing allowance for its governor, and as
Boston has the most expensive housing market of
any of the state capitals . . . we recommend
that the governor receive a housing allowance of
$65,000.”
The pay raise move was engineered by Senate
President Stanley Rosenberg and House Speaker
Robert DeLeo, whose salaries would jump by more
than 40 percent to $142,500. The annualized cost
of the bill is $18 million. It has generated
some backlash from voters, but no organized
opposition has developed.
Ira Jackson, the former Dukakis administration
revenue commissioner and chairman of the
compensation commission, defended the housing
allowance, saying it would make it economically
easier for potential gubernatorial candidates to
serve.
“There is almost a financial barrier for anyone
west of Worcester to run for governor unless
they are independently wealthy,’’ Jackson said.
Only one governor since 1960, Acting Governor
Jane Swift, has lived beyond a reasonable daily
commute from Boston. Swift lived in North Adams,
a 130-mile commute from the State House. As
lieutenant governor, she and her family rented
in Boston and later in Northbridge. When she
became governor after Paul Cellucci left office
in April 2000, she and her husband moved back to
North Adams. Her State Police detail drove her
back and forth to Boston most days.
Most other states provide their governors with
official residences. They run the gamut from
grand old mansions — such as New Jersey’s
Drumthwacket in Princeton, which is on the
National Register of Historic Places — to a few
that are simple, middle-class homes in the state
capital. Nor are they always appreciated. A
Boise, Idaho, resident donated a mansion to the
state as a governor’s residence in 2004, but it
was never occupied. The state eventually
returned it to the family, who tore it down in
2016.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
GOP knocks top Dems for silence over pay raises
By Matt Murphy
On the eve of pivotal votes, three of the
state's six statewide public officials have so
far refused to say whether they will accept the
significant pay raises authorized under a bill
vetoed last week by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The House and Senate, both controlled by
overwhelming Democratic majorities, are
preparing to override Baker's veto on Thursday,
which would put the raises for lawmakers, judges
and the six constitutional officers into effect
immediately. Baker has called the raises
"fiscally irresponsible."
Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito have already
said they would decline the pay hike, while
Auditor Suzanne Bump, a Democrat, said she would
accept the raise that would increase her salary
from $140,607 to $165,000 a year.
Attorney General Maura Healey, Treasurer Deborah
Goldberg and Secretary of State William Galvin
have so far deferred comment or a decision until
after the fate of the bill is decided, though
Galvin told the News Service this week that the
size of his raise - a $28,598 bump to $165,000 -
"doesn't trouble me."
Earlier in the week, the Massachusetts
Republican Party said Healey, Goldberg and
Galvin had a chance to "save taxpayers from this
abuse" by coming out publicly against the raise,
but all three are still holding back on making
their intentions known.
A spokeswoman for Healey said the attorney
general was aware of the pay raise proposal for
her office, and would make a decision if and
when the bill became law. Goldberg said the same
thing last week, and a spokeswoman said
Wednesday there was no further update to her
previous comments.
A spokesman for Galvin also said the secretary
would not have any comment beyond what he said
on Monday when he did express concern with the
total cost - $18 million - of the pay raise
bill.
In another statement on Wednesday, MassGOP
Kirsten Hughes said said the silence from the
three Democrats was "deafening."
"Taxpayers have been waiting for weeks to see
whether AG Healey, Secretary Galvin, and
Treasurer Goldberg will stand with them. But it
seems they'd rather duck the tough questions and
allow the Legislature to go forward with this
underhanded scheme that benefits them, despite
public outcry," Hughes said.
Galvin's pay would increase from $136,402 to
$165,000 a year, under the bill, and Goldberg's
pay would jump from $136,053 to $175,000.
Healey's salary would similarly climb from
$136,053 to $175,000, and her domestic partner,
Appeals Court Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian,
would receive the same $25,000 raise earmarked
for all judges boosting her pay from $165,087 to
$190,087.
Some lawmakers who voted against the pay hike
bill have also said they would turn down the
increases in pay that would delivered through
higher stipends for legislators assigned to
leadership positions and ranking committee
roles.
A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Democratic
Party last week called the pay raises
"reasonable," and defended lawmakers against
criticism for voting to increase their own
salaries.
"The Massachusetts legislature has helped grow a
state economy that is the envy of the nation and
create public schools that are? among? the best
in the world. The legislature's pledge to
protect the most vulnerable among us is
unquestioned," party spokeswoman Emily
Fitzmaurice said. "As a commonwealth, we need to
recognize their commitment. Over the past few
weeks we have watched while a parade of
billionaires nominated by President Trump
applied to run agencies they seek to dismantle.
That's what happens when we ceaselessly
denigrate government and public service."
The Boston Herald
Monday, February 1, 2017
Rosenberg: We’ve got votes for pay hike veto
By Matt Stout and Chris Villani
Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg sounded a
note of confidence yesterday that the
Legislature’s controversial pay raise package
should be law by week’s end, despite a
gubernatorial veto and continued gripes to
lawmakers, one of whom called it the “No. 1
topic” in his district.
The House and Senate both have formal sessions
scheduled for tomorrow, and several lawmakers
have said they expect a vote to override Gov.
Charlie Baker’s veto of the pay hike bill to
emerge then.
Rosenberg, in an appearance on Boston Herald
Radio, pointed to the margins Democrats built in
both chambers to pass the package — 116-44 in
the House and 31-9 in the Senate — when asked if
he expected the veto to be shot down.
“Assuming that holds, the answer would be yes,”
Rosenberg said.
Lawmakers rushed the bill through the State
House last week, voting on back-to-back days
without holding a single formal hearing. If
enacted, it would hike Rosenberg’s and Speaker
of the House Robert A. DeLeo’s salaries to
$142,500 a year, while also guaranteeing other
legislative leaders a range of padded stipends
for various chairmanships and other positions.
State Rep. Russell Holmes, a Mattapan Democrat
who voted for the measure, said he’s heard a
number of “angry” complaints from his
constituents, many of whom he said blasted the
difference in pay the hikes would create between
leadership and rank-and-file lawmakers.
“I have not changed my mind yet,” Holmes said.
“But when I’m out in the district, it is the No.
1 topic.”
The Herald reported yesterday that Gov. Charlie
Baker’s office said it was flooded with roughly
700 phone calls the day the bill hit his desk,
prompting the Swampscott Republican to call it
the “single-largest number of calls we’ve gotten
on one day.”
Asked yesterday whether his office has seen a
similar call volume, Rosenberg offered a quick
“no” before wrapping up the interview.
“Have a wonderful day everyone. Go Pats,” the
Amherst Democrat said.
The bill also gives Baker a $34,000 raise to
$185,000, plus a $65,000 housing stipend, though
he has said that neither he nor Lt. Gov. Karyn
Polito, whose salary would grow to $165,000 a
year, would take the raises.
Other constitutional officers would get various
hikes to $165,000 or $175,000 a year. State
Auditor Suzanne Bump has said she’ll take the
increase, but aides to Treasurer Deb Goldberg
and Secretary of State Bill Galvin have said
that they haven’t decided what they’ll do.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Maura Healey,
after days of requests for her stance, said
yesterday that she’ll “make a decision if and
when it becomes law.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Maura Healey mum as AG, partner in line for $70G
raise
By Matt Stout
Attorney General Maura Healey, who’s repeatedly
declined to weigh in on a controversial pay
raise package, stands to benefit beyond her own
proposed $44,418 pay bump: Her partner, an
appellate court judge, would also get a big
hike, increasing their household income by
almost $70,000.
Associate appeals court justice Gabrielle R.
Wolohojian, who currently makes $165,087, would
see her pay eventually rise to more than
$190,000 under the controversial pay raise bill
that, despite getting vetoed by Gov. Charlie
Baker, is expected to re-emerge today in the
House and Senate for an override vote.
Wolohojian, who owns the $2 million Charlestown
townhouse she shares with Healey, is one of two
dozen appellate judges who’ll see their salary
hiked under the legislation. But her inclusion
is notable given its impact on Healey, who has
yet to say publicly if she supports the package.
The bill would elevate Healey’s pay to $175,000
a year, a 34 percent jump from her current
$130,582 salary.
A Healey spokeswoman, after days of questions
about the AG’s stance, said on Tuesday that
Healey was “aware” of the proposal and would
make a decision of whether to accept the pay
bump if and when it becomes law.
She declined further comment yesterday.
Wolohojian also declined comment through a court
spokeswoman.
But their silence drew a sharp rebuke from state
Republicans.
“AG Healey’s silence on the Democrats’ pay hike
bill is all the more troubling given that her
household would benefit from double-dipping
under the bill,” MassGOP chairwoman Kirsten
Hughes said. “Healey owes taxpayers an answer.”
She isn’t the only constitutional officer to
skirt a stance. Aides for both Treasurer Deb
Goldberg and Secretary of State William Galvin
have said they have not made a decision on
whether to accept the raises. State Auditor
Suzanne Bump has said she will take her new
salary of $165,000.
Baker’s pay would jump from $151,000 to
$185,000, plus a $65,000 housing stipend, but he
said neither he nor Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, whose
pay would go to $165,000, would take the
increase.
The House, at 116-44, and Senate, at 31-9,
passed the bill last week with overwhelming
majorities, giving both chambers the necessary
support to override Baker, who called the bill
“fiscally irresponsible.”
The ripples of the pay package, however,
continue to spread. Under state statute,
Inspector General Glenn Cunha’s pay is linked,
to an extent, to that of the chief justice of
the Supreme Judicial Court, whose pay would rise
from $181,000 to $206,000 under the bill.
Cunha’s salary, currently at $154,000, is
decided each year by the Inspector General
Council, but is capped at 90 percent of the
chief justice’s pay. But as the judge’s salary
rises, so does the cap on Cunha’s, which could
potentially go as high as $185,000.
A spokesman for Bump, who chairs the IG council,
said the committee has discussed Cunha’s pay but
won’t vote on potentially changing his salary
until its next meeting in May.
“The IG council has discretion to set the pay at
whatever they feel is warranted,” Jack Meyers, a
Cunha spokesman, said. “It doesn’t mean he’s
going to get a raise.” |
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|