|
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
Friday, February 3, 2017
Pigs at the trough stampede over
taxpayers
|
House 116-43, Senate 31-9, overrode Gov.
Charlie Baker’s veto of an $18 million pay raise package
including hiking the salaries of the two leaders who filed
the bill, House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) and Senate
President Stan Rosenberg (D-Amherst), by $45,000 from
$97,547 to $142,547....
"It is fiscally irresponsible and the
process on it was inappropriate," said Gov. Baker.
DeLeo defended the raises and noted two
independent commissions had recommended many of the hikes.
"Raises of any type are always the subject of disagreement
... I don’t think there’s ever a right time or right place,"
he said.
"Congratulations taxpayers, you now have the
highest paid House speaker and Senate president of any state
legislature in the nation," said Chip Ford, Executive
Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "The Best
Legislature Money Can Buy" has struck again to make
Massachusetts Number One." ...
The House and Senate attached an emergency
preamble to the measure. That means it goes into effect
immediately instead of in the usual 90 days. The preamble
says, "Whereas, the deferred operation of this act would
tend to defeat its purpose, which is to make certain changes
in law for compensation of public officials, therefore, it
is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public convenience."
Voters are not allowed to collect signatures
to put a question repealing the pay raises on the November
2018 ballot because the package includes judicial pay hikes
which under the Massachusetts Constitution cannot be the
subject of a repeal on the ballot.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Special report on overriding veto of pay raise
By Bob Katzen
Massachusetts lawmakers steamrolled Gov.
Charlie Baker's veto of pay raise legislation Thursday,
delivering big salary increases for themselves, six
statewide constitutional officers, and scores of judges.
In a turn of events that no one was
predicting heading into the new year, the
Democrat-controlled Legislature in just over three weeks
surfaced the idea of pay raises for public officials and
then rammed the bill through authorizing the increases,
which are worth about $18 million per year, tacking on
language ensuring that the larger paychecks occur right
away.
On Thursday, lawmakers completed their work
by overriding Gov. Baker's veto of the bill by votes of
116-43 in the House and 31-9 in the Senate. No members of
either branch changed their vote in the week between the
bill's passage and Thursday's veto override.
Lawmakers entered the new year with major
policy challenges on their agenda, ranging from rising
health care costs to the new marijuana law, and calls for
criminal justice and sentencing reforms. House Speaker
Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, who in
December expressed interest in saving state services
unilaterally axed by Baker, jointly decided to vault the pay
raise bill to the top of the agenda, and pushed the bill
through without holding a public hearing on it and in the
face of objections from Baker who said the bill was
"fiscally irresponsible" and would boost state pension
costs....
Reps. Jonathan Hecht of Watertown, Shawn
Dooley of Norfolk, and James Lyons of Andover were the only
representatives to take the floor and debate the pay raises
prior to the override vote. They all spoke against passing
the bill, with Dooley saying it was precedent-setting and
would add to the power of the House Speaker by enabling him
or her to decide how much House members receive in their
paychecks.
Rep. Hecht said the raises would make the
House "more unequal, more hierarchical and less
representative." The Watertown Democrat said only nine House
members received extra pay before 1977, a number that rose
to 28 in the late 1970s, 34 in the mid-1990s, and 55 in
recent years. That number will rise to 80 under DeLeo's
plan, Hecht said, or two thirds of the majority party
members.
With nine separate pay levels among House
members, Hecht speculated that House members will become
more concerned about the desires of House leaders who decide
which representatives get extra pay than about their
constituents' concerns....
Debate in the Senate was limited to brief
comments from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, who said,
"It is clear that the governor has reviewed this matter and
decided it is inadvisable." The Gloucester Republican said
his caucus agreed with the governor's assessment and would
be voting to sustain Baker's veto.
State House News Service
Thursday, February 2, 2018
Pay raises cemented as lawmakers overrule Baker
After passing pay raise legislation that
critics said would further empower House Speaker Robert
DeLeo, the House on Thursday rebuffed a bid to restore a
rule limiting the House leader to serving eight straight
years in the top post.
With Rep. Ronald Mariano of Quincy in the
chair, the House ruled the Rep. Geoff Diehl amendment
proposing to reinstitute term limits "beyond the scope" of a
proposed package of House rules changes because Mariano said
it would create a vacancy in the speaker's office.
After first securing the speaker's post in
2009, DeLeo led the push to create term limits on the
speakership. As that limit was closing in on DeLeo, House
leaders during their 2015 debate on House rules struck the
limit from the rules, with members saying they wanted DeLeo
to stay on the job because of his experience....
The House shot down a total of 17
Republican-backed amendments, including one offered by
Andover Rep. James Lyons that would have limited the
legislation that could be taken up in informal sessions to
only "non-controversial" matters.
Lyons's amendment, which failed on a 34-121
vote, defined non-controversial bills as those establishing
sick leave banks, granting municipal liquor licenses,
already unanimously passed by the House and Senate in formal
session, or dealing with local matters and approved by the
municipality.
In recent weeks, lawmakers have met some
pushback for using lightly attended informal sessions to
pass a six month delay to retail marijuana licensing and to
introduce a package of pay raises for public officials
without advance public notice.
State House News Service
Thursday, February 2, 2018
House votes to limit stipends but not leadership terms in
new rules
The Massachusetts Legislature on Thursday
quickly overrode Governor Charlie Baker’s veto of an $18
million pay package that provides huge salary increases — 45
percent or more for some — to the state’s legislative
leaders, judges, and other top officials.
The raises, which will take effect
immediately, will make House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and
Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg among the highest-paid
legislative leaders in the country.
The House voted for the raises by a 116-43
margin, followed by the Senate on a 31-9 vote, the final
hurdles in a three-week-long controversy. DeLeo and
Rosenberg rushed the pay bill through the Legislature with
little public discussion.
DeLeo and Rosenberg will see their pay rise
from their current $97,500 to $142,500. With newly
reconfigured allowances for office and travel expenses,
their pay will grow to well over $150,000.
Other lawmakers will see smaller increases.
Baker called Thursday’s votes “fiscally
irresponsible.” ...
The pay raise push came as state political
news was being drowned out by the turmoil in Washington.
“The national political scene provides cover
on Beacon Hill,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a nonprofit focused on fiscal
conservatism. “These practiced politicians want you to think
they have your back but instead they have a knife in your
back.” ...
Asked about the speed with which the pay
raises were pushed through the Legislature, Rosenberg said,
“There’s no good time to deal with legislative
compensation.” ...
Attorney General Maura Healey and state
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg both announced after the Senate
vote that they, too, would not take the pay raises. The bill
calls for the attorney general’s pay to increase from about
$130,500 to $175,000 and the treasurer’s salary to increase
from $128,000 to $175,000....
The House vote came with little debate. Only
three lawmakers, all in opposition, took to the floor. The
entire 35-member Republican caucus, joined by eight
Democratic state representatives, made up the small
opposition in the 160-member House. A veto override requires
a two-thirds majority.
“This is not good for democracy,’’ said
Representative Shawn Dooley, a Republican from Norfolk,
noting the rush to get the pay hikes in place. “It does not
foster debate.”
Several hours later, the Senate took up the
bill, acting on it without debate. The six-member Republican
caucus held tight in opposition to the raises, and only
three Democrats — Senators Walter F. Timilty of Milton, Anne
B. Gobi of Spencer, and Michael Moore of Millbury — voted to
uphold the veto....
When DeLeo and Rosenberg initially presented
the pay bill, it included raises for legislators and state
constitutional officials only, with an initial annual price
tag of $934,000. The money for lawmakers’ salary increases,
they said, would be taken from existing funds in the
Legislature's budget.
But when the full bill was rolled out, it
contained judicial and court personnel pay raises as well,
pushing the total annual cost up to $18 million.
Putting the judicial raises into the bill
creates serious legal hurdles to any efforts to place the
pay issue before the voters on the 2018 ballot. The state
constitution bars referendums on judicial pay.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 19, 2017
Mass. Legislature overrides pay raise veto
Some people say stagnant incomes are a major
economic problem in this country. The Massachusetts
Legislature decided to do something about that Thursday.
Unfortunately, their bold move applied only
to themselves.
Lawmakers rammed through legislation that
would sharply increase their pay — as much as 45 percent to
legislative leaders, judges, and other top officials —with
almost no debate and little opposition. Dissent has been
muted partly because — in classic Beacon Hill fashion — the
raise is happening at a time when the entire world has
focused its attention elsewhere. Like on whether there’s any
way we can live four whole years under the new president.
Technically, the legislative raise applies
only to “leadership.” But the definition of that term is
elastic enough to apply to practically any lawmaker. That is
especially true of the Senate, which only has 40 members.
The raises themselves don’t bother me. At a
base salary of $62,500, legislators are grossly underpaid.
They make almost $40,000 less than Boston city councilors
(who are arguably overpaid). The reality is that legislators
cannot raise their salaries, ever, without criticism. No
matter when this subject is broached, or how gingerly, it is
met with cries that this is not the right time — no matter
when they try it.
But, that said, there is no defending the
way the State House heavyweights chose to ram through this
$18 million pay package. When the House voted on the raises
Thursday, there were just three floor speakers in
opposition. Apparently, the rest of the opposition did not
feel encouraged to express their thoughts. Historically,
there’s more debate about the annual sales tax holiday....
There is regular chatter about the need for
“two-party government” on Beacon Hill. But issues like the
pay raise are a window into an insular club at work. The
second the raise was formally proposed, the deal was as good
as done. Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) went
through the motions of voting against it, and the governor
blandly suggested that it was a poorly timed idea. But there
was never a sense of urgency to the opposition. Few seemed
all that troubled by it.
Lawmakers figure no one will care by the
next time they face the voters, and maybe they’re right. But
you don’t have to look far to see how restless the public
has become with business as usual in the halls of
government.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 19, 2017
The wrong way to raise legislators’ pay
By Adrian Walker
It had been an exhausting three weeks for
King Robert the Conniver. But as the sovereign of Beacon
Hill’s shadowy kingdom, the king — who had once been known
simply as Speaker Bob DeLeo — knew what was required of him.
He had to duck, dodge, deflect, and
dissemble until the weekend arrived. No, it wasn’t
dignified, but something far more important than dignity was
at stake here:
The Great Pay Heist of 2017....
And now, King Robert and his Royal House
followers had overriden that lightly cast veto, as had the
Royal Senate! Thank the Lord for the distracting antics of
Mad King Donald in Washington, and the upcoming festival of
the football in Houston, mused the king. Why, his distracted
subjects hardly seemed to realize that a pay hike originally
touted at less than $1 million had swollen to the size of a
corn-fed steer and was now a whopping $18 million. The big
reason? The king and his counselors had devised a scheme to
wrap judicial pay into the package, making it far harder for
citizens to block at the ballot....
Everyone, that is, but Prince Stanley the
Pious Process Pretender, overseer of the Senate and the
king’s junior partner in the pay heist. He had actually
tried to offer a rationale for the hushed-up, hurried-up way
it was transpiring. That had not gone well. In fact, it had
inspired much mirth among the scribes. The king was glad
that he, at least, had internalized that most vital lesson
from his royal forbears, men like William the Petty
Potentate and Salvatore the Sticky-Fingered, recently
returned from an extended stay in a faraway dungeon. That
is, when one has things wired, take the vote, bang the
gavel, and be done.
Times might change, the king concluded, but
the old ways really were the best ways.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 2, 2017
King Robert (DeLeo) and the Beacon Hill Pay Heist
By Scot Lehigh
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
In response to the Governor's veto not one representative or senator yesterday
changed his or her vote. When Bacon Hill leaders and members want
something badly enough — they just take it.
And most of them wanted this obscene pay grab most badly. And they must
believe they will get away with this shameless theft.
Not a single vote changed from the first vote to pass this public service
profanity. Blinded by greed they grabbed the cash and damn the torpedoes
of public opinion.
The representatives and senators that compose this out-of-control rogue
Legislature have proven where their loyalties lie. They are more beholding
to the leadership that doles out the rewards of fealty and to themselves than to
their constituents who put them there. They have proven that their primary
reason for running for elective office was for what they can take for
themselves, their personal enrichment. Those constituents whom they
deceived were only a momentary inconvenience, a means to an end then forgotten.
Their highest priority was and remains to enrich themselves at taxpayers'
expense, then expect to fool the voters again.
During the closing minutes of yesterday's short pay grab debate in the House
Rep. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk) said:
But by
passing this, we're setting ourselves up for potential future abuse
of power. When the speaker at his whim, at his leisure for no
reason, can take away a third of a legislator's pay, or grant them
an additional third of their pay, that is an extraordinary amount of
power you are putting in the hands of one man or one woman.
That is not good for democracy. That does not foster debate.
Someone
who has been living on 110,000 dollars and wants to speak their
conscience, but the future speaker says, I'm taking away your
stipend and committee assignments so you better think long and hard.
So that person is now going to have to balance what's right with
doing what's best for his pocketbook and his family. That is a
huge weight we need to consider. We've seen speaker battles
before that become divisive and petty. Now you're creating
huge amounts of money the winner can dole out
—
a tremendous warchest to his supporters. And cast down to the
rank and file those who don't support him.
So I
would ask everyone in this House to think carefully about the
precedent this sets in this House for years and years to come.
I ask if you vote that you please vote to sustain the veto.
One of the nine House Democrats who opposed the pay grab, Rep. Jonathan Hecht
(D-Watertown), noted in his opposition to the override speech:
Members' ability to represent their
constituents should not be minimized. Representation can get
turned on its head. One can find oneself waiting to hear what
leadership has decided, then working to convince constituents.
Rep. Jim Lyons (R-Andover) argued:
This
raises the question, what exactly is a good raise? We have to
put things in perspective. The average raise has hovered at 3
percent. That is considered a good raise, and I guess, would
put a grin on people's faces. What does a 55 percent raise do?
That isn't in the article, I'm just asking that. So we have
statistical data that goes back 30 years, not even in double digits,
yet we're increasing 55 percent. I understand people have
their own opinions on this. But I'm particularly caught by the
words of the Senate president in defense of this obscene pay raise.
I particularly like a couple of them. He has served for over
30 years and made the following statement. We're losing young
people every election cycle, particularly the young members trying
to start families and careers.
Now, he
said, we are losing young people every cycle. So the solution
the president has come up with is to give himself a 55 percent
raise. Based on news reports, the president is 68 years old.
Beacon Hill's new definition of younger members, I guess. So I
still have a ways to go. The Senate president in December had in his
campaign finance account 356,812 dollars. He also said he's a
vocal supporter of the pay raise and identified donations as an
obligation of elected officials that gives credence to raising
salaries. So donations is the reason to increase the salaries
of a 68 year old man with a balance of 356,812 dollars. It is
simply ludicrous the logic they're using.
The final
one I'll share is pay hasn't increased in 33 years. We got elected
in November, we knew the rules, I won't go through it again. Public
service is not about private enrichment. And that's what this is
becoming. Public service is just that - public service. This bill
creates private enrichment and is simply unfair and it is wrong.
Massachusetts now has the distinction of having the highest paid House speaker
and Senate president of any state legislature in the nation, and some of the
highest paid legislators in the country. "The Best Legislature Money Can
Buy" has struck again to make Massachusetts Number One. Those who made
this distinction possible can rest assured that in 2018 we will remind voters of
their treachery and faithlessness. Then their constituents can proudly
demonstrate our appreciation.
DeLeo and Rosenberg might have a point, that higher compensation is necessary to
elect competent legislators. Their point is well-taken; we sure don't have
many now. With the generous incentives the Legislature has now
provided, perhaps at last we'll have the opportunity to elect some.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
Has it come to this?
|
|
|
|
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Special report on overriding veto of pay raise
By Bob Katzen
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, FEB 2, 2017 - House 116-43,
Senate 31-9, overrode Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto
of an $18 million pay raise package including
hiking the salaries of the two leaders who filed
the bill, House Speaker Robert DeLeo
(D-Winthrop) and Senate President Stan Rosenberg
(D-Amherst), by $45,000 from $97,547 to
$142,547. The measure also hikes the pay of the
Legislature’s two Republican leaders, Sen. Bruce
Tarr (R-Gloucester) and Rep. Bradley Jones
(R-North Reading) by $37,500 from $85,047 to
$122,547. Another provision hikes the salaries
of the state’s judges by $25,000 over an
18-month period.
The measure raises the governor's salary by
$33,200, from $151,800 to $185,000; and provides
hikes for the other five constitutional
officers. It also requires that every two years
the salaries of the governor, the other five
constitutional statewide officers and the House
speaker and Senate president be increased or
decreased based on data from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) that measures the
quarterly change in salaries and wages. It also
requires that the same formula be used every two
years to increase or decrease the stipends that
99 other legislators receive for their service
in Democratic or Republican leadership
positions, as committee chairs or vice chairs
and as the ranking Republican on some
committees. There is a caveat in all these cases
that the amount of money they receive can never
be less than it is right now in February 2017.
"It is fiscally irresponsible and the process on
it was inappropriate," said Gov. Baker.
DeLeo defended the raises and noted two
independent commissions had recommended many of
the hikes. "Raises of any type are always the
subject of disagreement ... I don’t think
there’s ever a right time or right place," he
said.
"Congratulations taxpayers, you now have the
highest paid House speaker and Senate president
of any state legislature in the nation," said
Chip Ford, Executive Director of Citizens
for Limited Taxation. "The Best Legislature
Money Can Buy" has struck again to make
Massachusetts Number One."
"My standard for judging these things is this:
Are we paying a salary adequate enough to enable
a family breadwinner or a professional to run
for the office?" asked Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington)."This
will be the first pay raise in recent memory big
enough to draw the interest of people employed
in the private sector today. Any resulting
competition will be good for the system."
The measure puts an end to legislative per diems
which are travel, meals and lodging
reimbursements collected by the legislators.
These reimbursements are given to legislators
above and beyond their regular salaries.
Another provision increases the annual general
expense allowance for each legislator from
$7,200 to $15,000 for members whose districts
are within a 50-mile radius of the Statehouse
and to $20,000 for districts located outside of
that radius. This allowance is used at the
discretion of individual legislators to support
a variety of costs including the renting of a
district office, contributions to local civic
groups and the printing and mailing of
newsletters. Legislators are issued a 1099 from
the state and are required to report the
allowance as income but are not required to
submit an accounting of how they spend it.
The package also gives a $65,000 housing
allowance for the governor. Massachusetts is one
of only six states that supplies neither a
governor’s residence nor a housing allowance,
even as Boston has the among the most expensive
housing market of any of the state capitals.
The House and Senate attached an emergency
preamble to the measure. That means it goes into
effect immediately instead of in the usual 90
days. The preamble says, "Whereas, the deferred
operation of this act would tend to defeat its
purpose, which is to make certain changes in law
for compensation of public officials, therefore,
it is hereby declared to be an emergency law,
necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public convenience."
Voters are not allowed to collect signatures to
put a question repealing the pay raises on the
November 2018 ballot because the package
includes judicial pay hikes which under the
Massachusetts Constitution cannot be the subject
of a repeal on the ballot.
State House News Service
Thursday, February 2, 2018
Pay raises cemented as lawmakers overrule Baker
By Michael P. Norton and Colin A. Young
Massachusetts lawmakers steamrolled Gov. Charlie
Baker's veto of pay raise legislation Thursday,
delivering big salary increases for themselves,
six statewide constitutional officers, and
scores of judges.
In a turn of events that no one was predicting
heading into the new year, the
Democrat-controlled Legislature in just over
three weeks surfaced the idea of pay raises for
public officials and then rammed the bill
through authorizing the increases, which are
worth about $18 million per year, tacking on
language ensuring that the larger paychecks
occur right away.
On Thursday, lawmakers completed their work by
overriding Gov. Baker's veto of the bill by
votes of 116-43 in the House and 31-9 in the
Senate. No members of either branch changed
their vote in the week between the bill's
passage and Thursday's veto override.
Lawmakers entered the new year with major policy
challenges on their agenda, ranging from rising
health care costs to the new marijuana law, and
calls for criminal justice and sentencing
reforms. House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate
President Stanley Rosenberg, who in December
expressed interest in saving state services
unilaterally axed by Baker, jointly decided to
vault the pay raise bill to the top of the
agenda, and pushed the bill through without
holding a public hearing on it and in the face
of objections from Baker who said the bill was
"fiscally irresponsible" and would boost state
pension costs.
Baker on Thursday called the pay bill a "very
rich package" of raises that deserved "more time
and visibility" as the first matter to be taken
up by the Legislature in the new year, and said
it will require his administration to "figure
out how to pay for it." House and Senate leaders
have said the $2.8 million for lawmakers can be
absorbed into existing budgets for those
branches, but the salaries of judges could
require additional funding.
The governor said the "big beef" he heard the
most from people calling his office was not the
idea of a pay raise, but the "size and scale" of
the raises pursued by Democratic leaders. "It's
pretty hard to justify given where we are as a
commonwealth and the fact that there's still a
lot of programs that people would like us to
fund and a lot of stuff that people would like
us to support," he said.
Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito plan to turn
down the pay raises for themselves, as well as
the $65,000 housing allowance for the governor.
"There's still a lot of people in Massachusetts
who are struggling and hurting and I think its
important that we, sort of, stand by them,"
Baker said.
Legislators spent little time in recent days
publicly arguing for the salary hikes, but when
they have spoken out they have argued that the
roughly $62,000 base salary of lawmakers is too
low and biennial adjustments based on changes in
median income have been insufficient. Pay raise
supporters said they want to attract the most
qualified people to serve in the Legislature and
noted many lawmakers have left public service
because the wages are too low.
Last week, Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
said the bill would provide needed updates to
the compensation of lawmakers, which starts at a
base salary of about $62,000. While base pay
rates of legislators are adjusted every two
years based on changes in median income --
including earlier this year -- proponents
defended the pay raises, arguing that stipends
for leadership and senior committee positions
had not been adjusted since either 1982 or 1994.
"We are losing young people every election
cycle," Rosenberg told reporters. He said,
"Particularly the younger members who are trying
to start families and start their own career -
they cannot live on this."
Government payrolls are increasingly littered
with workers earning more than $100,000 per year
and the raises will catapault some lawmakers
above that mark, while leaving others under it
and, at the high end, delivering $45,000 pay
raises to DeLeo and Rosenberg that will push
their salaries over $142,000.
Reps. Jonathan Hecht of Watertown, Shawn Dooley
of Norfolk, and James Lyons of Andover were the
only representatives to take the floor and
debate the pay raises prior to the override
vote. They all spoke against passing the bill,
with Dooley saying it was precedent-setting and
would add to the power of the House Speaker by
enabling him or her to decide how much House
members receive in their paychecks.
Rep. Hecht said the raises would make the House
"more unequal, more hierarchical and less
representative." The Watertown Democrat said
only nine House members received extra pay
before 1977, a number that rose to 28 in the
late 1970s, 34 in the mid-1990s, and 55 in
recent years. That number will rise to 80 under
DeLeo's plan, Hecht said, or two thirds of the
majority party members.
With nine separate pay levels among House
members, Hecht speculated that House members
will become more concerned about the desires of
House leaders who decide which representatives
get extra pay than about their constituents'
concerns.
The biggest raises will come in the form of
fattened stipens for lawmakers with specially
designated leadership duties, but all lawmakers,
regardless of their rank or seniority, will be
entitled to receive more money for their
"expenses" -- $7,800 or $12,800 more, depending
on how close they live to the State House. The
bill eliminates the per diem payments that have
been available to lawmakers for each day they
travel to the State House.
Debate in the Senate was limited to brief
comments from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr,
who said, "It is clear that the governor has
reviewed this matter and decided it is
inadvisable." The Gloucester Republican said his
caucus agreed with the governor's assessment and
would be voting to sustain Baker's veto.
Boston Mayor Martin Walsh said Thursday his
former colleagues in the Legislature deserve a
raise.
"Everyone will say it's a big pay day," Walsh
told reporters after attending a bill-signing
ceremony in Baker's office. "Obviously I can't
deny it's a significant increase, but again, if
you take it over a 30-year period and you
average it across, it's not as significant."
Walsh said lawmakers have not had a pay increase
in years and that his salary dropped in his last
two terms as a state rep.
—Katie Lannan
and Matt Murphy contributed reporting
State House News Service
Thursday, February 2, 2018
House votes to limit stipends but not leadership
terms in new rules
By Katie Lannan
After passing pay raise legislation that critics
said would further empower House Speaker Robert
DeLeo, the House on Thursday rebuffed a bid to
restore a rule limiting the House leader to
serving eight straight years in the top post.
With Rep. Ronald Mariano of Quincy in the chair,
the House ruled the Rep. Geoff Diehl amendment
proposing to reinstitute term limits "beyond the
scope" of a proposed package of House rules
changes because Mariano said it would create a
vacancy in the speaker's office.
After first securing the speaker's post in 2009,
DeLeo led the push to create term limits on the
speakership. As that limit was closing in on
DeLeo, House leaders during their 2015 debate on
House rules struck the limit from the rules,
with members saying they wanted DeLeo to stay on
the job because of his experience.
Diehl's amendment also would have put an
eight-year limit on serving as House minority
leader, but the limit for that post would not
have been retroactive to 2009 as the Whitman
Republican proposed for the limit on the
speakership. Instead, the clock would have
started ticking on long-time Minority Leader
Brad Jones this year, possibly allowing for him
to continue in his role for another eight years.
Jones has held the minority leader position
since 2003.
The full 2017-2018 package of House rules,
adopted after more than two hours of debate,
limits representatives to collecting one stipend
on top of their base salary; allows members to
take photos in the chamber as long as they have
written consent from anyone else in the picture;
and formalizes a policy restricting the use of
the members' lounge area to official business
and educational purposes only.
A Rep. Byron Rushing amendment, adopted on a
voice vote, requires the clerk to announce the
name of any representative who has asked that
his or her name not be called during a roll call
vote.
When DeLeo was re-elected speaker last month,
two Democrats -- Reps. Angelo Scaccia of
Readville and John Rogers of Norwood -- did not
participate in the vote. The two lawmakers had
sent the clerk a letter earlier in the day
saying that they intended to be absent from the
chamber during the speaker vote and asking that
their names not be called. Their absence was not
mentioned on the floor, and both were present at
other times during the session.
The House shot down a total of 17
Republican-backed amendments, including one
offered by Andover Rep. James Lyons that would
have limited the legislation that could be taken
up in informal sessions to only
"non-controversial" matters.
Lyons's amendment, which failed on a 34-121
vote, defined non-controversial bills as those
establishing sick leave banks, granting
municipal liquor licenses, already unanimously
passed by the House and Senate in formal
session, or dealing with local matters and
approved by the municipality.
In recent weeks, lawmakers have met some
pushback for using lightly attended informal
sessions to pass a six month delay to retail
marijuana licensing and to introduce a package
of pay raises for public officials without
advance public notice.
Rep. Paul Mark, a Peru Democrat, said the
restriction was unnecessary as lawmakers already
have a way to halt the progress of a
controversial bill in an informal session.
"It's called show up and doubt the presence of a
quorum," Mark said.
Lyons, an Andover Republican, thanked Mark for
the suggestion and said, "It's certainly a
solution."
Other rejected amendments included a Rep.
Shaunna O'Connell proposal that would have
required audits of the House finances to be
posted online; a Rep. Elizabeth Poirier
amendment to change the makeup of the Ethics
Committee so Republicans and Democrats are
equally represented; and Jones amendments that
sought to prohibit committees from holding
hearings at the same time as formal sessions and
to require the issuance of a resolution by March
31 each year outlining the minimum levels of
local aid municipalities can expect in the next
year's budget.
Speaking in favor of the local aid resolution,
Rep. Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican, said
cities and towns typically assemble their
budgets at town meetings in March, April and May
but do not know how much money they will receive
from the state until months later, when
legislators agree on a final spending plan.
Rep. Stephen Kulik, a Worthington Democrat and
former selectman, said municipal officials can
base their budgets around the local aid amounts
the governor recommends in his budget proposal.
The House on Thursday also passed a joint rules
package.
—Michael P.
Norton and Matt Murphy contributed reporting
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 19, 2017
Mass. Legislature overrides pay raise veto
By Frank Phillips and Laura Krantz
The Massachusetts Legislature on Thursday
quickly overrode Governor Charlie Baker’s veto
of an $18 million pay package that provides huge
salary increases — 45 percent or more for some —
to the state’s legislative leaders, judges, and
other top officials.
The raises, which will take effect immediately,
will make House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and
Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg among the
highest-paid legislative leaders in the country.
The House voted for the raises by a 116-43
margin, followed by the Senate on a 31-9 vote,
the final hurdles in a three-week-long
controversy. DeLeo and Rosenberg rushed the pay
bill through the Legislature with little public
discussion.
DeLeo and Rosenberg will see their pay rise from
their current $97,500 to $142,500. With newly
reconfigured allowances for office and travel
expenses, their pay will grow to well over
$150,000.
Other lawmakers will see smaller increases.
Baker called Thursday’s votes “fiscally
irresponsible.”
“While Lieutenant Governor [Karyn] Polito and I
are thankful for our collaborative relationship
with the Legislature, we are disappointed in
their decision to override this veto,” Baker
said. “One of the key roles of elected officials
is to protect the people’s hard-earned tax
dollars. Authorizing this drastic salary
increase with limited debate defies this
obligation and places an undue financial burden
on the people of Massachusetts.”
The pay raise push came as state political news
was being drowned out by the turmoil in
Washington.
“The national political scene provides cover on
Beacon Hill,” said Paul Craney, executive
director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a
nonprofit focused on fiscal conservatism. “These
practiced politicians want you to think they
have your back but instead they have a knife in
your back.”
Rosenberg strongly defended the unexpected
appearance of the bill on the Legislature’s
agenda last month and the swift passage, saying
the proposal was first floated two years ago
when a special commission created by the
Legislature called for the raises. He noted that
the stipends for legislative leaders that were
raised in the compensation package had not been
increased for more than 30 years.
Asked about the speed with which the pay raises
were pushed through the Legislature, Rosenberg
said, “There’s no good time to deal with
legislative compensation.”
Maurice Cunningham, an associate professor of
political science at the University of
Massachusetts Boston, argued Thursday that the
officials deserve the money, and he said many
could make far more in the private sector. “They
deal with, among other things, a $40 billion
budget, and when you think of the magnitude of
that, then the money is not at all out of line,”
he said.
The House vote came with little debate. Only
three lawmakers, all in opposition, took to the
floor. The entire 35-member Republican caucus,
joined by eight Democratic state
representatives, made up the small opposition in
the 160-member House. A veto override requires a
two-thirds majority.
“This is not good for democracy,’’ said
Representative Shawn Dooley, a Republican from
Norfolk, noting the rush to get the pay hikes in
place. “It does not foster debate.”
Several hours later, the Senate took up the
bill, acting on it without debate. The
six-member Republican caucus held tight in
opposition to the raises, and only three
Democrats — Senators Walter F. Timilty of
Milton, Anne B. Gobi of Spencer, and Michael
Moore of Millbury — voted to uphold the veto.
When he announced his opposition last week,
Baker pointed to the Democratic leadership’s
moves to avoid opportunities for members of the
public to express their opinions, saying the
process lacked a “reasonable opportunity for
public comment.”
Still, the governor, who values his close
working relationship with legislative leaders,
did little to lobby lawmakers to change their
votes after his veto. He needed 10 Democrats in
the House or five in the Senate to switch. His
office said he called “several legislators” but
would not identify them or say whether they were
among those who voted in favor of the bill.
The legislative raises are actually increases in
the stipends that a vast majority of lawmakers
receive in addition to their $62,500 base
salary.
Senate majority leader Harriette Chandler and
House majority leader Ronald Mariano will see
their leadership stipends increase from $22,500
to $60,000.
Senator Marc R. Pacheco, the Senate president
pro tempore, will get a raise in his stipend
from $15,000 to $50,000 , as will Representative
Patricia A. Haddad, the House speaker pro
tempore.
“Raises of any type are always the subject of
disagreement, shall we say. I don’t think
there’s ever any right time or place,” DeLeo
said before the House vote.
Whether lawmakers accept the raises is up to
them, he said.
The package includes raises not only for
legislators and judges, but also for
constitutional officers including the governor,
lieutenant governor, attorney general, state
treasurer, auditor, and secretary of state.
Baker has said he and Polito will not accept the
pay increase. The bill also includes a new
$65,000 housing allowance for the governor,
which Baker said he would also not accept.
Attorney General Maura Healey and state
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg both announced after
the Senate vote that they, too, would not take
the pay raises. The bill calls for the attorney
general’s pay to increase from about $130,500 to
$175,000 and the treasurer’s salary to increase
from $128,000 to $175,000.
Associate justices on the Superior Court, for
instance, would receive $25,000 raises in four
incremental steps over the next 18 months, going
from $165,097 to $190,087.
When DeLeo and Rosenberg initially presented the
pay bill, it included raises for legislators and
state constitutional officials only, with an
initial annual price tag of $934,000. The money
for lawmakers’ salary increases, they said,
would be taken from existing funds in the
Legislature's budget.
But when the full bill was rolled out, it
contained judicial and court personnel pay
raises as well, pushing the total annual cost up
to $18 million.
Putting the judicial raises into the bill
creates serious legal hurdles to any efforts to
place the pay issue before the voters on the
2018 ballot. The state constitution bars
referendums on judicial pay.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 19, 2017
The wrong way to raise legislators’ pay
By Adrian Walker
Some people say stagnant incomes are a major
economic problem in this country. The
Massachusetts Legislature decided to do
something about that Thursday.
Unfortunately, their bold move applied only to
themselves.
Lawmakers rammed through legislation that would
sharply increase their pay — as much as 45
percent to legislative leaders, judges, and
other top officials —with almost no debate and
little opposition. Dissent has been muted partly
because — in classic Beacon Hill fashion — the
raise is happening at a time when the entire
world has focused its attention elsewhere. Like
on whether there’s any way we can live four
whole years under the new president.
Technically, the legislative raise applies only
to “leadership.” But the definition of that term
is elastic enough to apply to practically any
lawmaker. That is especially true of the Senate,
which only has 40 members.
The raises themselves don’t bother me. At a base
salary of $62,500, legislators are grossly
underpaid. They make almost $40,000 less than
Boston city councilors (who are arguably
overpaid). The reality is that legislators
cannot raise their salaries, ever, without
criticism. No matter when this subject is
broached, or how gingerly, it is met with cries
that this is not the right time — no matter when
they try it.
But, that said, there is no defending the way
the State House heavyweights chose to ram
through this $18 million pay package. When the
House voted on the raises Thursday, there were
just three floor speakers in opposition.
Apparently, the rest of the opposition did not
feel encouraged to express their thoughts.
Historically, there’s more debate about the
annual sales tax holiday.
The vote by the Legislature overrode a veto by
Governor Charlie Baker. Baker’s veto was almost
preordained, and he has said he personally will
not accept the raise he is due under the bill.
But he rejected the measure with one of the most
mildly worded veto messages I can remember.
Fiery opposition it was not.
Maybe Baker saw no reason to wage a war with
lawmakers that he would probably lose. Maybe —
as I suspect — he doesn’t really think the raise
is all that terrible an idea. He called the idea
“fiscally irresponsible” and stepped aside. The
big Democratic majority in the Legislature owns
this raise, not him.
As I said, I’m not against lawmakers making more
money. But the way this was done bears all the
qualities that drive cynicism about government.
Voters’ attention was elsewhere, coming as the
new president was being inaugurated, and passed
while the state was transfixed by his bizarre
behavior. Who has the bandwidth right now to
protest raises for committee chairs?
Lawmakers could actually learn a lesson from the
Boston City Council. The council’s pay raise
process in 2015 was highly contentious, and it
was public. Critics had months to make their
opposition known. I don’t mean to overstate the
nobility of the councilors: The council’s raises
were excessive and intended in part to pad the
pensions of some councilors who were plotting
their exits from City Hall. But their hustle was
transparent, if shameless.
There is regular chatter about the need for
“two-party government” on Beacon Hill. But
issues like the pay raise are a window into an
insular club at work. The second the raise was
formally proposed, the deal was as good as done.
Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) went
through the motions of voting against it, and
the governor blandly suggested that it was a
poorly timed idea. But there was never a sense
of urgency to the opposition. Few seemed all
that troubled by it.
Lawmakers figure no one will care by the next
time they face the voters, and maybe they’re
right. But you don’t have to look far to see how
restless the public has become with business as
usual in the halls of government.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 2, 2017
King Robert (DeLeo) and the Beacon Hill Pay
Heist
By Scot Lehigh
It had been an exhausting three weeks for King
Robert the Conniver. But as the sovereign of
Beacon Hill’s shadowy kingdom, the king — who
had once been known simply as Speaker Bob DeLeo
— knew what was required of him.
He had to duck, dodge, deflect, and dissemble
until the weekend arrived. No, it wasn’t
dignified, but something far more important than
dignity was at stake here:
The Great Pay Heist of 2017.
Pay, of course, was always foremost on the minds
of King Robert and his court. His penultimate
royal predecessor, Thomas the Brash, had
arranged for the loyal retinue of lawmakers to
receive an automatic raise whenever the
private-sector serfs got one, but as the king
saw things, that was naught but a widow’s mite.
This year, it had been a paltry 3.96 percent.
Why did anyone work in that strange land, his
Highness wondered?
The Great Pay Heist, by comparison, would be a
gluttonous pig-out, a feast of the sort seldom
seen on Beacon Hill any longer. Why, he himself
would get a $45,000 raise, a hike of more than
45 percent! The mere thought of what that would
do for his Royal Pension had the king salivating
like one of Prince Pavlov’s dogs.
Things had gone sneakily smooth from that moment
when he had paid a surprise Friday afternoon
visit to Charles the Rectitudinous and broached
the pay-hike idea. Yes, the governor had
ultimately cast a veto, but it had come more as
a falling twig than as a lightning bolt from on
high.
And now, King Robert and his Royal House
followers had overriden that lightly cast veto,
as had the Royal Senate! Thank the Lord for the
distracting antics of Mad King Donald in
Washington, and the upcoming festival of the
football in Houston, mused the king. Why, his
distracted subjects hardly seemed to realize
that a pay hike originally touted at less than
$1 million had swollen to the size of a corn-fed
steer and was now a whopping $18 million. The
big reason? The king and his counselors had
devised a scheme to wrap judicial pay into the
package, making it far harder for citizens to
block at the ballot.
Still, King Robert knew things could still go
wrong. He had seen it happen before, with other
legislative leaders and past pay hikes. Like
Indiana Jones, those brave men had navigated
their way through all the perils and pitfalls of
the booby-trapped temple, and pocketed the
golden idol. And then, suddenly, something had
happened, and they had found themselves
desperately trying to outrun a giant boulder and
fleeing from the angry locals amidst a hail of
poison darts and arrows.
And without the sacred pay-gold! The very
thought made King Robert shudder.
The key, everyone knew, was to keep things quick
and quiet.
Everyone, that is, but Prince Stanley the Pious
Process Pretender, overseer of the Senate and
the king’s junior partner in the pay heist. He
had actually tried to offer a rationale for the
hushed-up, hurried-up way it was transpiring.
That had not gone well. In fact, it had inspired
much mirth among the scribes. The king was glad
that he, at least, had internalized that most
vital lesson from his royal forbears, men like
William the Petty Potentate and Salvatore the
Sticky-Fingered, recently returned from an
extended stay in a faraway dungeon. That is,
when one has things wired, take the vote, bang
the gavel, and be done.
Times might change, the king concluded, but the
old ways really were the best ways. |
| |
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
|