The Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
NEWS ANALYSIS
Judges wary of challenging Beacon Hill
By Frank Phillips
Globe Staff
The state's Supreme Judicial Court offered only tepid opposition to a budget rider pushed
through by the Legislature two weeks ago to strip judges of their power to hire probation
officers -- an assault on judicial independence.
Hearing no vocal protest, Acting Governor Jane Swift obliged House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran and went along with the change, which gutted a major court reform without
any debate.
The judges' acquiescence, if disappointing to some, was not surprising. The judiciary has long
avoided offending the Legislature, perhaps gunshy after retaliation against judges
who failed to cooperate with legislators' demands.
Researchers who have studied the relationship say in no other state does the Legislature have
such a grip on what goes on in the courts. And now, that relationship is under close
examination, as the state's highest court grapples with a case of enormous interest to
lawmakers -- whether the Legislature's killing of the Clean Elections law can stand.
"It's clear the Legislature has decided to reclaim control of the courts," said Ken White,
executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. "We have seen in the past the
Legislature use means both petty and substantive to undermine the authority
of the courts. Unfortunately we are headed to a return to the bad old days."
Judges cannot be blamed if they fear retribution from the Legislature, which maintains control
over individual appropriations to each of the state's 61 courthouses -- an
unusual system that allows legislators to reward and punish individual judges through the budget process.
In 1981, then Senate President William M. Bulger famously slashed Housing Court Chief
Justice George Daher's budget and demoted him after he resisted Bulger's demand for a job
for the son of roguish Governor's Councilor Patrick J. Sonny McDonough.
Then in 1995, former SJC chief justice Paul Liacos, who had crossed Bulger and other legislative leaders,
discovered that a budget rider knocked out his use of a hideaway office at the
district court near his Peabody home. Last year, Senate Ways and Means chairman Mark Montigny
inserted language that gave him a say on who is hired at the New Bedford District Court
after getting in a dispute with the presiding justice.
"It is clearly a situation in which the judiciary will privately complain and is concerned, but
they feel incapable of publicly expressing their feelings for fear of reprisals," said
Charles Chieppo, a spokesman for the Pioneer Institute, a fiscally conservative public policy
advocacy group.
The institute is preparing to release a study that strongly criticizes the Legislature's direct
involvement in the management of the courts. It says lawmakers have increasingly
used budgetary powers to encroach on the judiciary, which a 1978 court reform sought to protect
from such interference.
In the most recent budget, Finneran succeeded in taking the authority to hire probation
officers away from Chief Administrative Justice Barbara Dortch-Okara and giving it
exclusively to commissioner of probation, John J. O'Brien, a Finneran friend and a close ally
of other legislative leaders. Dortch-Okara had refused many lawmakers' demands to hire
those they referred to her.
When the budget measure landed on Swift's desk two weeks ago, Supreme Judicial Court
Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who oversees the court system, sent no written
communication to Swift nor did she seek a meeting with her. In an interview,
Marshall said she conveyed the SJC's opposition "orally" to Swift's staff.
"I don't think there is any possibility the message was not communicated," Marshall said.
Her decision not to intensively lobby Swift has angered some in the legal community.
"By not putting it in writing, the message is loud and clear that it doesn't really matter," said
retired Dorchester chief justice James Dolan, a strong critic of the Legislature's
encroachment on the courts. "This was the time to make the final push to prevent this from happening. It
called for a visit to the governor and a public statement."
But Marshall said the hectic few days that Swift had to analyze the $22.6 billion budget made
it more difficult to directly communicate the court's opposition.
One SJC justice, John M. Greaney, did break ranks with his six colleagues and sent a letter
to Swift expressing his opposition to the provision. His letter also raises questions
about the SJC's commitment to fight patronage when he writes that his fellow justices "have chosen
not to comment on the legislation regarding the probation service. I do not agree
with them on that point."
Return to top
-- A CLT BLAST FROM THE PAST --
Coalition for Payraise Repeal (CPR)
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
For further information contact:
Chip Ford / Barbara Anderson
SJC Denies Release of Hostage Petitions
This afternoon the SJC ruled that the Secretary of State can kill the initiative petition process
on a whim, putting the once-constitutional right of the people in serious jeopardy.
In one paragraph and without explanation, Justice Lynch ordered that the Coalition for
Payraise Repeal's motion was denied. CPR had asked the court to force Secretary of State
William F. Galvin to release our hostage petitions as he used to be required to do by the
state constitution.
"We figured the fix was in as soon as Justice Lynch interrupted our attorney's opening
statement to argue 'practicality' while ignoring constitutionality," said Chip
Ford, chairman of CPR. "Consistency from the Beacon Hill Establishment has followed this effort from
beginning to end; consistent denial of the law, the constitution and the people's
rights under it."
"The court issued no explanation for its one-sentence ruling, because there
is no credible explanation that could be made," said Barbara Anderson, CPR vice-chairman and
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "We still had faith in the courts to stay above the
political fray, but even the highest court in the state has joined in the assault
on the initiative petition process."
Credit by the Legislature is due the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which filed a
brief in support of the Legislature's pay and pointedly noted: "...the Legislature is
enjoined to ascertain and establish by standing laws honorable salaries' of the judges of the Supreme
Judicial Court." That chilling reminder may have saved the Legislature from its
constituents' outrage in November. We will be following AIM-filed legislation over the next few years to
see how it fares.
- 30 -
There you have it folks. We have finally been stopped -- by the last potential vestige of
legitimacy in state government, the state's Supreme Judicial Court. When the Justices can
ignore a blatant violation of the constitution, allow a rogue Secretary of State to unilaterally
decide which petitions will be printed and which won't, and look away -- something bigtime
stinks.
And there isn't a damn thing more we can do about it here in what was once the "Cradle of
Liberty." At least not immediately, for the pols are fully in control. Stay tuned,
more will follow as soon as I catch my breath and ratchet up my already high cynicism-level. I just
wanted to let you know the unbelievable travesty that has taken place as soon as possible.
CHIP FORD, Chairman
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran has failed for nearly a year to implement most of a
series of major reform proposals aimed at cleaning up the "Animal House" atmosphere on
Beacon Hill.
Released with fanfare on Dec. 29, 2000, the recommendations attempted to streamline the
chaotic House budget process, which most agree is now even more secretive and inefficient
than ever before.
"They have finally caught on to what I've always been afraid they would recognize -- they
can get away with anything," said Citizens for Limited Taxation chief
Barbara Anderson.
Some progress has been made -- the House hasn't held an all-nighter since the infamous
session two years ago when members boozed it up and napped during budget debate, freely
casting "phantom" votes for absent colleagues.
Bowing to a public uproar, Finneran (D-Mattapan) named a distinguished panel of
reformers, who blasted the "lack of decorum on the House floor" and urged "special
emphasis be placed on the rules regulating voting."
Despite that admonition, old habits resurfaced last week as some House members were
caught casting phantom votes -- a move that drew harsh criticism from members of the
reform commission.
"The very physical presence of that member in the chamber casting that vote exemplifies that
he or she understands and accepts the duty and responsibility to stand in the place of
the voters who elected him or her," said Rep. Frank Hynes (D-Marshfield), a commission
member.
Finneran refused interview requests made on Friday, Monday and Tuesday. On Monday, he
admonished a Herald reporter to demonstrate "good behavior" if she hoped to be granted an
interview later this week.
The bulk of the reforms offered by the MacQueen Commission -- named for former House
clerk Robert MacQueen -- have languished, been partially implemented, or fallen victim to
House-Senate bickering.
Even before budget negotiations devolved into a five-month debacle, the reforms were falling
by the wayside. The House last spring made a go at adhering to the commission's
recommendation that budget amendments be taken up sequentially and according to subject
matter.
But by the second day of the weeklong debate, amendments were being taken up in the very
"random" pattern that the MacQueen Commission criticized as a source of unnecessary
confusion.
"I absolutely think there's still some work to do," said Assistant House Minority Leader Brad
Jones (R-Reading), a commission member. "Time and distance create a certain
cloudiness of memory."
Legislative leaders have, at least, embarked on the commission's advice to crack down on
the proliferation of "outside sections" -- policy items that are attached to the
budget despite having nothing to do with state finances.
In a companion recommendation, the commission suggested lengthening the narrow window
committees now have to report on bills.
But the leadership, while agreeing to crack down on outside sections, ignored the
bill-reporting deadline reform.
The result is that rank-and-file lawmakers this year had even fewer chances to push their
priorities. "We continue to have sluggish movement of bills to the floor," said Rep. Anne
Paulsen (D-Belmont).
Return to top
State House News Service
Weekly Roundup -- Week of Dec. 3, 2001
By Craig Sandler
Ballot questions on taxes,
bilingual education get signatures
Groups trying to ban gay marriage, wipe out bilingual education and ban the slaughter of
horses for commercial products all collected and filed enough signatures to move their
questions forward; an initiative to wipe out the income tax also
But the powerful Massachusetts chapter of the AFL-CIO, to the surprise of many, failed to
collect enough signatures to advance a question raising and indexing the minimum wage on
the ballot. The union's 2002 ballot plans, announced earlier this year with fanfare, have
imploded - the AFL-CIO recently announced it was ending a quest to have voters approve
mandatory family leave benefits.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Sunday, December 9, 2001
The Buzz
All bark, no bite
Lost in the shuffle this week was the truly pathetic display of muscle by the state's AFL-CIO.
Just after finally dropping its weak paid family leave ballot proposal, the state's largest union
announced the automatic annual minimum wage hike was DOA.
The union said it collected more than the 57,100 signatures needed to get the wage hike on
the ballot but that too many were knocked off to get the question certified.
Union Treasurer Kathy Casavant called it "a learning experience" and doesn't diminish the
union's desire to raise the minimum wage.
But it sure had the State House talking about the diminished power of the AFL.
"This," one Republican groused, "is the mighty unions? Even the Libertarians can get the
signatures."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, December 9, 2001
Political Capital
Ballot initiative campaign proves
a painful lesson for labor union
For a labor union that touts its organizing power, it was nothing short of embarrassing. The
Massachusetts AFL-CIO last week failed to gather enough signatures to put a proposal to
tie the minimum wage to inflation on next year's ballot. The union had already abandoned its
plans to place a paid family leave proposal before the voters. Meanwhile, an obscure effort
to ban the killing of horses for human consumption appears likely to make it to the voters
next fall. AFL-CIO organizers said they cobbled together enough signatures for the minimum
wage initiative, but fewer than the requisite 57,100 proved certifiable. "This was our first
experience with ballot initiatives, and it was a real learning experience for us,"
said Kathleen A. Casavant, treasurer of the state AFL-CIO.
Return to top
State House News Service
Advances -- (Week of Dec. 10, 2001)
WHAT'S NEXT ON THE LEGAL FRONT? Legal wrangling over the Clean Elections
Law is just one of several thorny issues being mulled this week by the state's Supreme
Judicial Court. It's unclear when a decision will come on the public campaign financing
case. The decision will be the latest chapter in the long debate over funding for a law designed to
bring newcomers into legislative and statewide races. The plaintiffs say the court
is their last resort, but are fearful that even a favorable decision may not force the Legislature to
appropriate funds the law requires....
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Monday, December 10, 2001
A Boston Herald editorial
Phantom voting returns
This year's House debate on the governor's line-item vetoes was again marked by flagrant
dishonesty in voting. Since the members have shown they will not live by their own rules, it's
time for technological means of enforcement.
Even after Speaker Thomas Finneran warned members not to do it, Herald reporters
spotted members of both parties voting for others Wednesday evening.
Some defended this cheating as "customary." Rep. J.P. Loscocco (R-Holliston) said if
colleagues in the chamber waved to him to push the voting button on their desks, he viewed
compliance as simply being "an extension of their arm."
The rules permit only one exception: A court officer may cast a member's vote if the member
is in the building but disabled, and the proxy is announced in advance.
After an outbreak of phantom voting in last year's "Animal House" session, a special
committee was asked by the speaker (who at first defended the practice) to look into rules
changes. It reported "no consensus" and nothing was done.
Rep. Francis Marini of Hanson, the Republican leader (who has admitted some phantom
voting himself), has proposed use of electronic voting cards unique to each member, the
system used in the U.S. Congress. These have the advantage that a member
may vote from any desk in the chamber (and would have no need to wave at Loscocco).
The House is reluctant to admit it, but few things short of bribery do more to destroy public
confidence in the integrity of the Legislature than this sham voting. A system like
Marini's should top the agenda for next year's session. It may take a system that recognizes a
member's fingerprint before recording a vote, but the public deserves assurance that at
least this basic democratic function will be performed honestly.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Sunday, December 9, 2001
Editorial
The money trail
The millennium year on Beacon Hill is sputtering fitfully to an end, leaving a record that is apt
to intensify residents' feelings of alienation from state government.
From the adoption last week of a congressional district map essentially unchanged from the
gerrymandered map drawn a decade ago to the nullification of the Clean Elections
referendum, the dominant theme of this Legislature has been incumbent protection.
A new report on legislative campaign financing offers insight into why the leadership has
grown so disdainful of the will of the people. The report by the Massachusetts Money and
Politics Project focused on 10 members who hold top leadership positions or key committee
chairmanships.
Analysis of campaign data from 1997-2000 revealed 90 percent of the leaders' donors were
from five groups: lobbyists, political action committees, lawyers, government employees and
industries such as health care and construction that are heavily affected by state lawmaking.
As telling as the source of the donations was their timing. The 10 leaders raised as much or
more money in off-election years as in election years -- and 75 percent came in the first
half of the year, the peak time for committee hearings and budget debate.
Moreover, none of the leaders had more than token opposition. That means they could use
the bulk of expenditures to further solidify their political positions via more fund
raising, gifts and gratuities to constituents and other lawmakers, meals and hospitality. Their average war
chest was $95,417, enough to scare off most prospective challengers.
Not surprisingly, top lawmakers and special interests are very comfortable with this cozy
symbiosis. But the leaders' overwhelming advantages of incumbency come with a price: the
interests and confidence of the people they are supposed to serve.
Return to top
