More trouble for Beacon Hill, Deval and others
As I had written last year, the fallout from the upcoming DiMasi trail may well be the end for Deval and others who were connected to the awarding of a software contract. In the trail many who knew what was going on will be testifying, under oath, just before the election in November.
Reading the tea leaves, some 30 reps are not going to run again, leaving an opportunity for a seriuos change on the Hill, if and only if, reasonable, middle-of the-road, Independent, unconnected to any party, civic minded people from across the state to get on the ballot. Anyone who voted for DiMasi, just weeks before he had to resign, will and should be challenged and beaten in open debates. The is no cover for these people and they know it.
The historically ineffective and unproductive track record for Beacon Hill mirrors what has just happened this week. On Wednesday, a Constitutional Convention was convened at 1:06 PM, (meaning both House and Senate meet jointly)to consider amendments proposed to the State Constitution, either by initiative petition or legislative action. The agenda has 17 proposals intended to improve the way the commonwealth is governed, including reforming the legislative redistricting process, abolishing the Governors Council, limiting state spending, repealing automatic pay raises for legislators and restricting the use of eminent domain.
The Constitutional Convention was first convened in May of 2009, but recessed 13 minutes later. It reconvened in Sept, 2009 and was recessed immediately until Feb 24th. On Wednesday, Senate Pres Murray recessed the joint session at 1:07 PM.
Bottom line: Nothing good will ever happen, for the voting tax payers, as long as Murray, DeLeo and all their ruling elitist followers are voted out of office. And this year, unlike any I've seen in the past 20, could very well happen. Normal everyday people are sick and tired of the way Beacon Hill operates and can judge for themselves, those who continue the disgraceful inability to get anything meaningfully done.
posted by Jim Pillsbury @ 10:09 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Maybe a dumb question, but why bother convening this Constitutional convention if you are going to shut it down 1 minute later?
Pillsbury what are you basing this estimate that 30 reps will not run for re-election on? Have that many actually announced they will not be running again already? I would like to think that is true and that we actually have the opportunity to replace some of these dyed in the wool bureaucrats this time around, but to do that, we have to get new candidates up and vetted now, not a month before the elections. How do we find out for sure if the person from our district is going to run again or not? Much easier to convince someone to run for the sear if the incumbant has already said they are not running, so this is important information, and I don't know where to find that information. Do you have it?
Jerry,
I don't make this stuff up... It's in the Globe today, but I believe unless you buy the hard copy paper and have an account, you may not be able to read it on line.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2010/02/26/many_giving_up_seats_in_legislature/
All of them must pull nomination papers from the State or the local clerks to be on the ballot. There's no way to know, which one is not running at this point and I'm pretty sure, a few more will consider not running, in light of the pending DiMasi trial, 2 Senators trials, one city councilor trial, and a host of others who just haven't been caught yet.
By the way, you are seeing the exact same thing go on in Congress and the Senate. Some have already been caught with their pants down and will be forced from office, while others will see what's coming and not run at all and the holdouts will be beat by voter anger.
Frank,
I believe they cannot just stop the convention from happening at all legally. What they can do, is just what you see, they just refuse to work on it, but allow it to come up, even for just a minute. I think that satisfies the legal requirement.
Interesting information here as always. I think the change of control at the state house from existing elected officials to the newbies will be a good thing, but you need some continuity from the old to the new. Are there any existing people at the state house who are worth keeping? Any I wonder about the staffers, not the elected people themselves, but the people working behind the scenes for these elected officials. I sense that if we don’t get rid of them along with the elected official nothing is going to really change. They probably have more to do with what gets done and what does not get done than anyone else.
Is Richardson going to run or has she figured out that she does not have quite such a cake walk anymore? I suspect that even her old supporters are going to do some soul searching about supporting her again this time out. A lot of it will depend on who runs against her, as is true in all of these races. Just because someone is new does not mean they are going to be good or any better than what we have there now. Look at Scott Brown? I can’t believe MA elected him to take Kennedy’s seat, but we did. Will be interesting to see if he was a good choice, or a bad choice just for a different reason than Coakley was a bad choice. Lets hope lots of good people get involved in MA politics this time around. I think it is an opportunity for that to happen here like there has not been in a very long time so if we can get some good people to run, we may actually be able to make some good changes to the way the system operates here in the Commonwealth. At least lets hope we can.
How do we capitalize on this to make sure we get all these hustlers out of the state house? You imply here that the governor is involved in the shenanigans. If that is so, then we could acutally see a change in leadership all the way to the top seat and that means we have the opportunity to redesign the political agenda here in MA. Lets hope that all of us, every single voter in MA, takes advantage of this opportunity and uses his vote to make sure that change happens. We tend to be a lethargic bunch. That needs to stop now if we really want change.
Who made the rules that you have to convene it, but you don't have to actually do anything once you convence except unconvene? What idiot made that rule?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home