How Speaker DeLeo runs the House
I know, I know.. no body wants to read a long piece on here. I get it. But there are some topics that need longer explanations. This piece is from MassLive, about a former lobbyists who tells it like it is on Beacon Hill. DeLeo has run the House like his own kingdom. Newly elected reps will soon find out, either they go along to get along or have their offices in the basement. It's all about unchecked power.
AT THE MASSACHUSETTS State
House, I stepped outside of a packed hearing on updating the state’s bottle
bill to speak with a young reporter for a western Massachusetts weekly. I had
been “holding court” with the press all morning – giving them the Sierra Club’s
point of view on the proposed legislation. I enjoyed this type of work
immensely, as reporters were generally sympathetic to environmental bills and
asked interesting questions.
But on this day, I was tired,
frustrated, and not in a very good mood.
“How will the vote go?” a young
reporter asked me.
“What vote? They’re not voting
today,” I replied.
“When will the vote be? Next week?”
he asked.
“Probably never,” I shot back.
“But isn’t the majority of the
committee in favor of it? Won’t they call for a vote?” he queried
That moment, I broke an unspoken but
absolutely firm rule among lobbyists: never criticize the State House
political system. “Let me be clear,” I asserted. “Don’t confuse
what goes on in this building with democracy.”
And that’s exactly what he printed.
Massachusetts is often seen as the
home of American democracy. It was home to John Adams, who was not only the
state constitution’s primary author, he was also one of the authors of the
United States Constitution. In fact, the Massachusetts constitution served as a
model for the US Constitution. But, over the years, weaknesses in our state
constitution became more evident. The most glaring problem was that the House
speaker, whose position was originally created to keep order and facilitate the
passage of legislation, was given the potential to amass an inordinate amount
of power.
Exposing the flaws in a political
system requires criticism of it. It’s difficult – taboo, actually — for anyone
who’s part of the process to engage in this type of criticism. Any lobbyist who
criticizes the State House’s power structure would instantly become
ineffective, shunned by both Democrats and Republicans. Reporters who expose
the system’s corruption would lose access to their sources. Even State House
staff, as we’ve recently learned, were forced to sign nondisclosure agreements
upon their departure. The system thus protects itself from scrutiny.
Some years ago, representing the
Massachusetts Sierra Club, I met with Speaker Robert DeLeo along with other
allied groups. I had been in numerous meetings with the Speaker. This meeting
was the culmination of many months of hard work by me and many other lobbyists.
I told him that a coalition of groups had polled members of the House and
we knew that a sizeable majority of the members supported our bill
“They’ve privately told me that they
really don’t want your bill to pass,” the Speaker said.
Whether this was true or not isn’t
relevant. It’s possible that the House Speaker had no conversations with anyone
about our bill. Or maybe our bill really was secretly unpopular. I’ll never
know. But what I immediately came to realize was that I could have 159 of the
160 members all love a bill, but unless I had the Speaker’s
“blessing” I had nothing.
How did we get here?
Practically speaking, there must be
some order in a legislative body. The primary role of the House speaker is to
keep the body organized. Leaders and committee chairs need to be appointed.
With 5,000-plus bills filed every session, the Legislature cannot possibly
treat each one the same. Many require urgent action by the state, many should be
summarily dismissed. Bills have to flow through the system.
Speakers in Massachusetts over the
last 40 years have become increasingly controlling. Despite the fact that three
of the last five House speakers left under indictment (or under a cloud of
wrongdoing), each employed a style of leadership that became increasingly more
dictatorial and less democratic than that of their predecessors. This
metamorphosis isn’t limited to just Massachusetts; it closely parallels the
situation in other state legislatures, as well as in the US Congress.
There are those who argue that
increased political divisiveness has created the need for more powerful
leaders, and they may be correct. But Massachusetts has a Democratic
supermajority (more than 66 percent); there’s no need to have Democratic Party
unity when state Republicans represent only 20 percent of the House.
In order to understand how the
system has devolved, it’s important to understand how the system works in
theory and practice. Forget what you’ve seen in Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington. That’s Hollywood, not reality. Although there are
possible exceptions, this is a summary of how a typical bill is supposed to be
handled and how it is handled:
A bill is proposed in the first two
weeks of the two-year session (legislators are elected for two-year terms). In
Massachusetts, bills filed by the governor, the speaker, or the speaker’s close
allies can be filed at any time. If a bill is in response to an emergency
situation, late filing should be permitted. There are typically over 5,000
bills filed each session.
What really happens is bills
late-filed by others are ignored, unless the speaker has specifically asked for
the bill to be filed.
The man holding all the cards: House
Speaker Robert DeLeo
At roughly the same time that bills
are filed, the two bodies elect their leaders. The House selects a speaker, the
Senate selects a president. The House speaker selects his/her committee chairs
and leaders. What should happen is that the speaker’s appointees should reflect
the diversity of the body and the state.
What really happens is that the
speaker chooses only his most loyal followers for leadership positions, ones
who will abide by all of his requests. But these so-called “leaders” aren’t the
ones who make the significant decisions. The real decisions are made by the
Speaker and an inner circle: the chair of Ways and Means, the Majority Leader,
and sometimes one or two others. This inner circle makes the vast majority of
all decisions. The rest of the so-called leadership may be in a position to
urge the Speaker to support something, but are largely irrelevant in the
decision-making process. Some former members have privately referred to
themselves as “window dressing.”
After the initial weeks of the
legislative session, the 5,000-plus bills are categorized and sent to the
appropriate committees. (For example, most environmental bills are sent to the
Environment and Natural Resources Committee.) Shortly thereafter, hearings
begin. Legislative rules require that every bill receive a public
hearing. This means that anyone, citizen or not, individual or corporate
representative, can testify on any bill that he/she wishes. There are usually
16 members on every joint legislative committee: six Senate members and 10
House members.
What that imbalance in House and
Senate members means is that the House members will always have the votes to
control what goes on in the committees. The speaker instructs the committee
chair as to which bills he wants to move immediately. Bills unsupported by the
speaker that may bring out a large crowd or unwanted media attention are placed
on the calendar during inconvenient times, like the Friday before a three-day
weekend or in July and August. Unsupported bills are often grouped together,
guaranteeing a painfully long day of hearings. This is done to suppress public
turnout.
All bills must be voted on by
approximately March 15 of the second year of the session, or they are
deemed to have failed. What typically happens is committee chairs decide when
bills are brought to a vote. In today’s Legislature, nothing gets voted on
without the speaker and his inner circle approving it. When the committee meets
to vote, they do so in executive session (that is, off the record and typically
without public witnesses). Votes can be by email, phone, or in person. The
tallies of the votes are secret and not public information. The possible
results are only pass, fail, or “study.”
Legislators don’t like to say “no.”
Instead of voting no, they’ll send a bill to “study.” Of course, there is no
study. There’s no funding for studies. There are no staff members assigned to
do studies. Sending a bill to study is an indirect way of saying “no.” The vast
majority of the 5,000 bills are sent to study. Some of them have been sent to
study every session for 10 years — or longer.
Sometimes bills are passed intact,
but more often they are modified. Occasionally, the entire bill is rewritten.
But bills do pass. And then they’re sent to Ways and Means. Ways and Means
is not a joint committee (that is, a committee with both House and Senate
members). The House and Senate each have their own Ways and Means Committees. A
Ways and Means Committee is supposed to investigate the financial implications
of a proposed bill. If a bill has no financial impact, or has a positive and
desirable one, Ways and Means will pass this (indirectly) to the entire
membership of the House. (This is simplified.)
Ways and Means is known as a
“top-down committee.” What really happens is that the chair tells the committee
members exactly what will happen to each bill. There are no on-the-record
meetings or hearings. A bill favored by the speaker will receive a positive
recommendation by Ways and Means and then be sent to the floor for a vote. At
times, a committee chair will be under enormous pressure by committee members,
constituents, or others to pass a bill. If the pressure is significant, the
committee chair will allow it to pass, knowing that it will be killed by the
next step in the process: Ways and Means.
The two-year session ends on July 31
of the second year. During the previous 19 months, the 5,000-plus bills that
have been proposed have had hearings. In some cases, bills have emerged from
their assigned committees with or without changes. Many bills that were sent to
Ways and Means have emerged and have been approved by the full House and/or
Senate. As the deadline approaches, many bills have gathered in Ways and Means.
What often happens is that a bill
proposed by one of the House members, if it’s supported by the Speaker, will be
held until the very last days — or hours — of the end of the session on July 31
(of the second year). This is one of the most important aspects of the
Speaker’s hold on power. The Speaker needs the bill as leverage to ensure the
sponsoring representative’s (or representatives’) allegiance. If a
representative’s favorite bill were passed at the beginning of the session,
what leverage would the Speaker have over him/her?
Bills that are not supported by the
Speaker — but have somehow made it through the process — enter a black hole.
These bills are never released by Ways and Means, and, therefore, die. This
allows the Speaker to kill a bill, and allows the sponsoring representative to
save face with his/her constituents. The representative’s refrain: “I got the
bill all the way through the process, I even got a positive report from the
committee, but the session ran out before we could vote on it.”
The Budget
I could write many pages on the
budget process and its dysfunctionality; below is only a short summary.
Like in most states, the state
budget process in Massachusetts is an annual rite. Each year, the governor
submits a “wish list” budget containing changes that he/she wants to see:
funding/defunding various programs, and, most importantly, drawing attention to
his/her priorities. The governor’s budget has no legal standing; the
Legislature can completely disregard it if it chooses.
Meanwhile, the Speaker, the House
Ways and Means chair, and a few others craft their own budget. They pay close
attention to the “cherry sheet,” a list of set-asides for giving back to each
of the state’s 351 municipalities. (It’s called a cherry sheet because it was
originally printed on cherry-colored paper.)
State representatives work furiously
to get their in-district projects funded. While there’s no “quid pro quo”
activity (that would be illegal!), it’s not a secret that loyal supporters of
the Speaker get more cherry-sheet funds.
There are two main parts of the
budget: the main body and “outside sections,” which are essentially amendments.
State representatives submit their requests for additional funding via this
system.
Watch the debate and vote on the
budget’s outside sections and you’ll witness a harsh lesson on how our
democracy has failed. As each item is called, the sponsor (and occasionally
other supporting reps) make a speech as to why it should be included in the
budget. The Speaker’s lieutenants will be clearly present on the House floor.
One will be negotiating with the item’s proponent, allowing an item to pass,
perhaps with changes. The other will be orchestrating the vote: e.g., requiring
a “voice vote” (meaning that it failed, no matter how many voiced yeas and nays
there were), or orchestrating a roll-call vote. Roll-call votes require that
the representative clearly vote “yea,” as instructed. Reps are occasionally
permitted to “take a walk” (leave the room) if they opposed a budget item.
While past speakers would permit some leeway on minor amendments, the current
leadership orchestrates the vote on every budget item.
One year, I sat in the gallery,
naively watching a fascinating exchange on repealing the state’s sales-tax
exemption for airplane parts. (It’s true: we don’t tax airplane parts.).
Numerous representatives spoke convincingly that this was a giveaway to the
wealthy (duh!). One representative (who had a small airport in
his/her very wealthy district) said that these aircraft owners would
simply fly their private planes to New Hampshire, and we would lose all our
airplane repair businesses. Others pointed out that our sales tax is hardly
enough reason to cause someone to spend part of their vacation in another
state, and that the cost of detours or extra flights would exceed the dollar
amount of the sales tax. Only one representative wanted to keep the
exemption. It was obvious how the vote would go. Or so I thought. But there was
no vote. The bill failed on a so-called “voice vote.” We still don’t charge
sales tax on airplane parts.
How did it get this way?
Historically, it wasn’t always this
way. Nevertheless, in the past 40 years, speakers have become increasingly
autocratic. House members and former members recall the administrations of
Charlie Flaherty, Thomas Finneran, and Sal DiMasi as strong and powerful, but
none of them controlled every bill. The past speakers would control
important bills — or ones on which they had strong opinions. They all allowed
their lieutenants — or even the entire body — to make decisions on what were
seen as minor bills.
But as the system has progressed,
each successive House speaker has exploited the potential, under the state
constitution, to amass tremendous (and despotic) power to the office. And if
this trend continues, it’s likely that the next speaker will be even more
autocratic.
When speakers are elected at the
beginning of the session, each comes equipped with a preordained “leadership
team” — loyal lieutenants who will act on their leader’s wishes and wield the
speaker’s power as needed. These top leaders include the chair of Ways and
Means and other key posts. From this power base, various representatives trade
their fealty for positions of authority. Some more “powerful” (some use the
term “obedient”) representatives become committee chairs; others may just get
to serve on their favorite committee.
Those who oppose the Speaker (or who
simply annoy him) will get terrible committee assignments, one staffer, and
cramped, dank offices hidden away in the State House basement. These committees
do little, have few bills, and have no authority. Meanwhile, powerful committee
chairs get additional staff, nice offices, and the opportunity to hobnob with
leadership members. All of this isn’t necessarily bad. However, without access
to leadership, a representative has little chance of passing his/her bills.
Having staff is very attractive to
state representatives. Normally, they’re allowed one full-time staffer –
someone with clerical skills. This staffer must handle policy inquiries,
constituent services, committee work, scheduling, and public relations. It’s a
daunting job, and far more than the average person can handle. Committee chairs
can have three or four, or more; this allows one staff person to dedicate
his/her time to constituent services. Good constituent services are essential
for a representative’s reelection effort. The more people a representative can
help, the more votes the rep can count on. One staff person will be an attorney
to write and amend bills. Without this expertise, a representative is usually
dependent on lobbyists to author his/her bills.
How can we fix the system?
I’ve painted a very dark picture of
state politics. And although I’ve never seen any signs of financial corruption
under the current Speaker, the current system is a grave and serious perversion
of democracy.
It’s easy to become cynical about
today’s political climate. But there are paths to change, and it’s up to us to
seek them out. Some years ago, one state representative tried to oust the
Speaker, only to lose, have his committee position stripped, and then be moved
to a damp, tiny office. But he did the unthinkable — he challenged the
Speaker!
We need to encourage our elected
representatives to challenge the Speaker, perhaps not by threatening to
overthrow him but by pushing back, refusing to go along with “mandated yea
votes.” We also need to pressure our elected representatives to push back
whenever possible, such as by introducing bills via alternate methods (there
are perhaps a dozen ways to get a bill into consideration). We can encourage
our reps to vote for candidates for speaker who pledge to democratize the
House, much as Rep. Byron Rushing did in 2005.
Meet the Author
3 Comments:
Nothing here is newsworthy, just same old same old from our State House
speaker deleo and yuck go together in my world
And to top off the news...from Mass Live
Gov. Charlie Baker certified the base pay raise for 200 members of the House and Senate. The governor is also in line for a $44,170 raise, in addition to a $68,854 housing allowance.
BOSTON —Two years after legislators ignited an uproar by voting through a generous package of pay raises for themselves and other public officials, the salaries for top ranking elected officials and rank-and-file legislators on Beacon Hill are going up again.
Gov. Charlie Baker certified a pay raise of 5.93 percent for the 200 members of the House and Senate for the 2019-2020 session, raising the base pay for legislators by $3,709 to $66,256.
Stipends for the many leadership positions and committee chairmanships to be handed out early next year by legislative leaders are also due to rise by over 8 percent, according to Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, and all six statewide elected officials appear to be eligible for sizable raises on the scale of 8.32 percent.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Karen Spilka, for instance, are in line for raises of $11,613, in total, which would bring their compensation to $152,912 a year, plus $16,248 for office and travel expenses. That includes the 5.93 percent bump in base pay, and an 8.32 percent increase in their leadership stipend, which now totals $86,656.
Meanwhile, Gov. Charlie Baker will accept, for the first time, an increased salary of $185,000 and a $65,000 housing stipend, upping his total pay package from its current level of $151,800. Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito will also be accepting an increased salary of $165,000.
After rejecting the same increase in pay in 2017, Baker during his campaign for re-election said he would accept the higher rate.
“I opposed that then because I hated the process that the Legislature went through to deliver on it and I didn’t feel like the Commonwealth was in a position to deal with it. But it’s now the statutory requirement here in Massachusetts,” Baker said during his final debate against Democrat Jay Gonzalez.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home