Sen. Tisei was the only Senate Republican to vote
against the tax rollback on May 24, 2000.
BOSTON (AP) Leaders in the House and Senate both agree they
can't close the state's yawning budget gap without new taxes.
They just don't agree yet about who should be taxed, or how
much.
As the House prepares for a potentially grueling budget
debate starting Wednesday, senators are quietly reviewing the House's $1 billion tax package approved last week.
Some of the proposals, such as a freeze in the voter-approved income tax rollback and
hiking the tax on capital gains, appear to be gaining Senate support.
Others, including lowering the personal exemption, seem
stalled.
"Everything the governor and the House and Senate has put
forward should be on the table," said Senate Ways and Means Chairman Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford.
That includes some ideas rejected by the House, according to
Montigny.
Montigny said he is giving "serious consideration" to acting
Gov. Jane Swift's proposal to boost revenues by decreasing what the Lottery pays out in prizes. House leaders said the
move could jeopardize the Lottery's success.
The Senate is also weighing possible corporate tax hikes,
another thing the House avoided, Montigny said.
"One thing that everyone is comfortable with is a blend of
taxes and cuts," said Montigny, who has been meeting one-on-one with senators to gauge what taxes they might support.
Montigny said he hasn't determined the size of the Senate
tax package, but said any package would need two-thirds support to withstand a veto.
Acting Gov. Jane Swift said she would veto the House tax
package, which passed by more than a two-thirds vote.
One of the most contentious House proposals would lower the
personal exemption on income tax from $4,400 to $3,300 for individuals and $8,800 to $6,600 for couples.
Senate President Thomas Birmingham helped lead the effort in
1998 to boost the personal exemption, a move which saved individuals $131 and couples $262.
Montigny said there is little Senate enthusiasm for
tinkering with the exemption.
House leaders deliberately separated the vote on new taxes
from the budget debate. They also released a budget plan before the tax debate showing the kind of budget cuts they said
would be needed without new taxes.
With a $1 billion more on the table, many of those proposed
cuts will likely be restored.
The House's tax debate could make the Senate's task easier,
giving senators a chance to see which proposals have already won a two-thirds majority in the House.
"It's a question of what we can legitimately expect will
pass by a two-thirds vote and what ultimately will be the most fair," said Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham, a member of the
Taxation Committee.
The House plan also tacked a 75 cents tax on packs of
cigarettes and killed a deduction for charitable donations.
Support for a cigarette tax appears strong in the Senate.
The Senate may add or delete from the House plan, Montigny
said. Some proposals considered in the House but ultimately abandoned included new taxes for alcohol and a
one-percent increase in the state sales tax.
Birmingham has also indicated he might support boosting the
income tax rate back to 5.6 percent, rather than freezing it at 5.3 percent as the House did.
Some Senate Republicans say they are open to tax hikes.
Sen. Richard Tisei, R-Wakefield, said some tax increases are
"probably inevitable," although he would be opposed to raising taxes on capital gains.
"That would be a big mistake," said Tisei, a member of the
Ways and Means Committee. "It would be like throwing ice water on the economy."
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
State budget tight, but not 'pork'-free
By Michael Kunzelman
BOSTON - A $100,000 face lift for a Framingham park. A
wheelchair lift for Mendon's Council on Aging. A parking lot for Franklin.
Even though the state is staring down the barrel of a $2.2
billion revenue shortfall, many House lawmakers have found room on their budgetary wish lists for projects that specifically
benefit their districts.
Restoring deep cuts in local aid, education and human
services was a clear priority for the House members who filed nearly 1,600 proposed budget amendments last week.
But, besides saving statewide programs and services, many
representatives also hope to bring home at least a token share of the $23 billion state budget for pork-barrel projects that
cater to their constituents.
House leaders have warned rank-and-file lawmakers that there
would be little or no room in the fiscal 2003 budget for "one-time, purely local projects," said state Rep. David
Linsky, D-Natick. The fiscal year starts July 1.
"There's clearly some (pork) in there, but I don't know how
much," said Linsky. "Those local projects should be saved for more prosperous times."
Like many of their colleagues, state representatives Deborah
Blumer, D-Framingham, and Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, filed dozens of amendments aimed at protecting funding for local
schools, social services and state aid to cities and towns.
They also teamed up to file an amendment that earmarks
$100,000 to help pay for renovations to Tercentennial Park on the former Cushing Hospital grounds in Framingham.
Blumer said the town is in danger of losing grant money for the project if
the state fails to pay its share.
"Everybody understands that money is very tight this year,"
she said. "It's one of those things that we may have to - and can - forgo."
Rep. James Vallee, D-Franklin, filed an amendment that would
set aside $500,000 for his hometown to build a municipal parking lot. Among the amendments sponsored by Rep.
Marie Parente, D-Milford, was $200,000 for the restoration of Cedar Swamp Pond in
Milford, a $100,000 grant for Mendon to test wells and clean up illegal dumping and
$10,000 for Mendon seniors to install a wheelchair lift.
Parente said all three proposals fulfill a vital need in her
district. The Milford pond, she said, is in danger of "dying."
"I was careful not to ask for much," she said. "I might have
a few hamburgers, but I'm not asking for any pork."
Lawmakers filed dozens of other MetroWest-specific amendments, including:
-
$100,000 for the Rte. 495 Technology Corridor Initiative
(co-sponsored by Linsky and Spilka as well as representatives Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston, and Stephen
LeDuc, D-Marlborough).
-
$50,000 for a smoking-cessation program at the Boys and
Girls Clubs of MetroWest (Linsky, Spilka, LeDuc and Rep. Patricia
Walrath, D-Stow).
Rep. John Locke, a Wellesley Republican who isn't seeking
re-election, said pork-barrel projects are a staple of any budget cycle.
"What will be telling this year is to see which ones survive
the process and to see to whom they go," Locke said. "It's pay-back for loyalty and that kind of thing."
Locke, known as maverick voice in the House, filed an
amendment that takes a jab at House Speaker Thomas Finneran. The amendment would rename the "Schooner Ernestina," the
state's official sailing vessel docked in New Bedford, to the "Schooner Thomasina
Finnerina."
The Ernestina is a 112-foot sailing vessel well-known on the
waterfront in Massachusetts and Rhode Island for its transatlantic voyages ferrying goods and people between the
Cape Verde Islands and Providence, R.I.
Locke said the schooner is a testament to government waste.
"The thing is in a horrendous state of disrepair last time I
saw it," he said.
The House is expected to begin debating budget amendments
tomorrow.
Last week, House legislators approved $1 billion in new
taxes in an effort to close the state's budget gap. How much of that $2.2 billion shortfall is filled and how much is left open
remains to be seen.
Parente said she hopes to see cuts in local aid drop from 10
percent to as little as 3 percent.
"That would forestall an increase in property taxes," she
said.
Blumer said she is concerned that health-care programs will
remain on the chopping block.
"Every time I turn around, people are telling me about
something else that is being cut, and that's a problem," she said.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
Rep wants to sell state-owned golf courses
By Michael Kunzelman
BOSTON - State Rep. John Locke, a self-described "hacker" on
the golf links, is eyeing the sale of state-owned golf courses as a way to avoid slicing millions of dollars from the state
budget.
Last week, the Wellesley Republican filed a budget amendment
that calls on the Metropolitan District Commission to study the economic impact of selling the Leo J. Martin
golf course in Weston and Ponkapoag golf course in Canton.
Locke questioned why the Legislature is spending money to
operate the two courses as it plans to cut millions in local aid, education and human services.
"It's a matter of priorities," Locke said. "Why are we in
the business of running golf courses when we're cutting money for breast-cancer research and colon-cancer research?"
Locke wants the MDC to investigate "alternative uses" for
the golf courses in which the land is preserved as open space.
"I don't mean to say that we should put up a 600-home
development," he said. "If we sold it to a private entity with the provision that it remain open space, we could perhaps be
the beneficiaries of a huge sum of money."
Jay Lachance, a spokesman for the MDC, said the commission
recently looked into privatizing the maintenance operations of the two golf courses. But the effort was stymied by
a state law that says state employees can't be "displaced" by a private
contract, according to Lachance.
Lachance said he hasn't seen Locke's amendment and couldn't
comment any further.
Locke said the courses can be expensive to maintain. Leo J.
Martin, in particular, has a drainage problem that is expected to cost the state about $250,000 to fix. Last month, the
Senate passed a $919 million environmental bond bill that includes money for the repairs.
"I know we're not making money off them because we do have a
(budget) line item that appropriates money for the golf courses every year," Locke said.
Locke's amendment gives the MDC up to 120 days to issue a
report on the potential benefits and drawbacks of selling the two courses.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
Reps may usurp power of judicial watchdog
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
The independent watchdog panel that oversees judicial
behavior would be obliterated and its duties handed to lawmakers, under budget riders filed by House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran's leadership team.
The amendments wipe out the Judicial Conduct Commission's
$405,036 operating budget and divvy the money among other causes.
The nine-member panel assesses complaints against judges,
and levies punishments ranging from reprimands to removal from the bench.
Control over judges' fates would be given to the legislative
Judiciary Committee - whose House vice chairman filed the amendments.
Court observers were outraged, saying the House's proposal
would allow lawmakers to punish their enemies and reward their friends in the judiciary, which lawmakers have long
stacked with patronage hires.
"We don't have an independent third branch of government,"
said Charles Chieppo, director of the Pioneer Institute's Center for Re-structuring Government. "The Legislature controls
the judiciary and they are moving to increase and consolidate their control."
Filed by House Judiciary vice chairman Christopher G. Fallon
(D-Malden), the amendments are tucked in among 1,565 other riders, which will be up when debate on the House's $21.8
billion budget opens tomorrow.
The current head of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep.
David Donnelly (D-West Roxbury), is slated for a vote tomorrow on his own judicial sinecure. A close friend of
Finneran's, Donnelly has been tapped for a seat on the Waltham District
Court.
Fallon said he filed the riders because he's disappointed
that the watchdog panel has failed to act on several high-profile cases.
A complaint is still pending, for instance, against Superior
Court Judge Maria Lopez, who berated prosecutors in September 2000 while giving a slap on the wrist to an admitted child
molester.
"I do not see any action, whether it be discipline,
reprimand, anything," Fallon said. "If we're not getting our bang for the buck, why should we be paying?"
According to the commission's 2000 annual report, the most
recent data available, 340 complaints were filed that year. Of those, 311 were disposed - 292 dismissed and 19
"informally adjusted."
But Fallon acknowledged the potential for legislative
chicanery, and said he would offer a new version giving the watchdog tasks to a citizen advisory panel, instead of
lawmakers.
Liberal House members, meanwhile, are gearing up for war
against the patronage that's been larded through the judiciary for years.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
Judges watch as legislators ready a power play
Analysts see threat to judicial authority
By Frank Phillips
Globe Staff
In what is being described as the darkest moment yet in the
relationship between the Legislature and the judiciary, Massachusetts judges and the state's legal establishment
yesterday privately seethed over House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's latest move to
diminish judges' powers.
But, displaying a timidity that some court observers say has
emboldened the Legislature to assert more control over the judiciary, no judges yesterday spoke out against the measure,
which would strip them of the power to hire personnel, even their own secretaries and clerks.
Like a thunderclap late last week, one of Finneran's top
lieutenants, Representative Angelo Scaccia, filed a budget rider that would overhaul the court personnel system. The
amendment was viewed on Beacon Hill and in legal circles as a strike by Finneran to retaliate for recent
decisions, including upholding the Clean Elections law.
If approved, it could be a big blow to the reforms of the
Cox Commission in 1978, which sought in the post-Watergate era to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and remove
politics from the Massachusetts courts, by giving judges authority over their courthouses. The
commission spent two years and heard hours of public testimony before submitting its
findings for debate in the Legislature.
"In my 26 years, I have never seen relations between the
Legislature and the court at this level," said Edward P. Ryan Jr., a Fitchburg attorney and immediate past president of the
Massachusetts Bar Association. "I think we are at a very serious moment in the history of the
Commonwealth in terms of the Legislature and the courts."
Michael B. Keating, president of the Boston Bar Association,
warned that the increasingly tense relationship threatens the courts' ability to function.
"I am disturbed by the level of rhetoric involving the court
system," Keating said. "The level reflected in this amendment could undermine the authority of the courts, which are so
integral to our society."
The amendment by Scaccia, a Hyde Park Democrat, would
transfer all administrative powers from judges to the clerk magistrates in each court. The clerk magistrates would
oversee personnel, the assignment of judges, and even the granting of leaves of absence to
judges. By empowering the clerks, many of whom come from the political ranks and often
are friendly with legislative powers, the lawmakers could marginalize the judges.
"To take away from the presiding justice the authority is
contrary to any management notion of the courts," said Keating. "It would be totally inappropriate."
In addition to Scaccia's measure, other legislators,
including Representative Michael Cahill, a Beverly Democrat who is running for state treasurer, are pushing to change the state
Constitution to require judges to go before the Governor's Council every six years for
reconfirmation, a move that would throw over the state's long history of giving judges life
tenure and independence.
But it was the amendment pushed by Scaccia that sparked the
most attention and concern, in part because it could be fast-tracked through the budget and become law. Cahill's
measure requires a lengthy process and confirmation through a referendum.
The relationship between the two branches has grown strained
over the past several years as legislators have pressured court officials to hire their political supporters and friends. After
years of acquiescing, some judges, particularly the chief justice of administration and
management, Barbara Dortch-Okara, have begun to resist political hirings, and have sought
to diversify the court workforce.
But the most serious fissure appears to have resulted from
the Supreme Judicial Court decision earlier this year that the state must fund the Clean Elections law, a voter-approved
statute that lawmakers despise and have sought to kill. Despite the ruling, the Legislature has
failed to appropriate the money for the law.
Caught by surprise by Finneran and his leadership in this
latest move, members of the judiciary remained quiet yesterday, apparently trying to determine how serious the speaker is
about pushing the measure.
A press aide said Chief Justice Margaret Marshall would not
be available for comment until later today. The Massachusetts Judges Conference, which lobbies for judges' interests at the
State House, said it was still studying Scaccia's amendment and would have no comment.
The silence is not new. Judges, who depend on the Legislature for everything from their
salaries to staffing levels, are frequently muted about such moves.
Last fall, angry over courts' handling of patronage
requests, the House added a rider to the budget that took away any role judges have in hiring probation officers in their
courts and transferred the hiring powers to the commissioner of probation, an ally of Finneran and other
legislators. Acting Governor Jane Swift signed the measure into law, after little
protest from judges.
Massachusetts' budgeting system, in which the Legislature
controls individual budget line items for the state's 61 courthouses, allows lawmakers to punish some judges and reward
others with funding.
To some analysts, the judges' silence in the face of the
Legislature's latest move is a strategic error.
Judicial-legislative relations "are as bad as they ever have
been," said James Dolan, retired chief justice of the Dorchester District Court, who said the judiciary should speak
out about the Legislature's continued infringement on the courts and the judges. "Failure to comment
confirms in the minds of many of the legislators their belief that judges are
arrogant and remote and only heard from on pay-raise issues. This, in their mind, suggests the court
system looks on in disdain at the folks in the other branches of government."
The Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar
Association came out strongly against the Scaccia amendment, not only for its sweeping content but for the manner in which
Finneran's leadership team is proposing the changes.
Scaccia did not return phone calls yesterday. And, as he did
late last week, Finneran said he has not seen the amendment that would create the most sweeping changes to the judiciary in
almost a quarter century.
Return to top
