CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Gov to veto Finneran's power grab?
Gov. Mitt Romney ought to stick to his guns. If he accepts that outrageous bill to let legislative leaders award their allies bonus pay without getting a bill passed to do so, he will greatly lower his chances for a successful administration.
A new "sunset" provision for reconsideration in two years is no reason to think again. Beacon Hill's
pooh-bahs will not easily yield such a political tool.
Failure to veto this bill will signal the public that Romney is not serious about changing the culture on Beacon Hill, and will signal the
pooh-bahs that Romney can be rolled.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 16, 2003
Don't roll over on pay, Gov
Governor Mitt Romney is again threatening to veto a bill that would give legislative leaders far more flexibility to grant pay increases to their lieutenants, saying a change inserted by the state Senate does not answer his objections.
Romney indicated late last week that he was leaning toward signing the measure, based on lawmakers' description of the amended bill as one that would give them the expanded power to set leadership pay only through the end of next year.
But a review of that language reveals that it would make a permanent legal change allowing legislative rules -- which are not reviewed by the governor -- to dictate extra pay for members of House and Senate leadership. Romney also opposes a provision of the bill that would make pay increases retroactive to the beginning of the year, said Shawn Feddeman, Romney's press secretary....
The Senate Democratic whip, Joan M. Menard, said on the Senate floor Thursday that the amendment she was offering would "sunset" the bill at the end of 2004. However, only the legislative rules would be phased out after next year; when the Legislature reconvenes in January 2005, House and Senate members would retain the power to set extra pay without the governor's input....
"This change changed absolutely nothing," said state Representative Paul C. Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat who opposes increasing legislative leaders' ability to hand out pay raises. "If this passes, the governor will be giving up his power now and into the future to review legislation that gives extra compensation for leadership positions. The notion that this last-minute amendment makes any substantive change in the bill is the biggest con job I have seen anyone try to perpetrate in my nine years as a state representative."
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Veto threat revived on legislative raise
Realizing House and Senate leaders were about to sucker him into relinquishing historic checks and balances over legislative pay raises, Romney now leans toward vetoing bonus-pay bills passed by both houses, an aide said yesterday....
It was hatched to give the House speaker and the Senate president more power. (How much do they need?) But new committees can be created and their chairmen compensated fairly under full review and scrutiny by the public and the governor.
And it's a lousy time to be ladling out new pay hikes when workers are being laid off all over Massachusetts.
State Sen. Robert L. Hedlund (R-Weymouth), who agrees with that view and warned against any deals with the Democratic leadership, said yesterday, "I'm confident the governor will do the right thing on this."
At last, senator, it appears that he will.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
The pay-raise bucks will stop with gov
by Wayne Woodlief
House and Senate members of the budget conference committee are still hammering away at the differences between their spending plans for the fiscal year beginning July 1. While making a good effort at reform, each body also has its share of budget-busters, bungles and sheer bloopers. If legislative leaders don't excise the worst of these Gov. Mitt Romney's veto pen will have to finish the job....
Despite all the reforms in both plans, the old saw about a chain being only as strong as its weakest link applies here: The budget is only as good as its worst detail.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 16, 2003
The budget bungles should get the boot
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Governor Mitt Romney has swung again toward vetoing
Finneran's power grab, but stay tuned.
He's righteously disillusioned that the Senate
promoted it as "temporary" when in fact it would revert to a
mere House/Senate vote on "rules." Term limits on the speaker
was required by House "rules" too until Finneran was crowned
Speaker-for Life" when the end of his tenure was with in sight.
Thankfully our message is getting out. This is not
about the House or the Senate "arranging its own affairs."
This is about tyrannical control of state government at taxpayer
expense.
Lancaster's override passed by 70 votes on Monday
after threats of the town's alleged inability to bury the dead without
it Marblehead's three overrides passed easily yesterday. The big
one passed when voters were told that unless they supported more
school spending their trash would not be picked up. The
Massachusetts Teachers Association has made available a
manual to instruct pro-override advocates on how to win Prop 2½
overrides to benefit their membership, with suggestions like suppressing
the vote and avoiding "menu" override choice. It's worth a
look.
The Lawrence Eagle Tribune published a must-read
exposé on teachers cashing in on "sick days"
and "mental health" days far and beyond private sector
employees in its five-part series that began yesterday, "When
teacher's out." If you're not fed up enough with
teachers' whining about how low they're paid for the 180 days they put
in a year, what little "deserved" respect they get, wait
until you read this!
We sent our memo
to the governor today. You might like to read it. I think we covered
everything.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Veto threat revived on legislative raise
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney is again threatening to veto a bill that would give legislative leaders far more flexibility to grant pay increases to their lieutenants, saying a change inserted by the state Senate does not answer his objections.
Romney indicated late last week that he was leaning toward signing the measure, based on lawmakers' description of the amended bill as one that would give them the expanded power to set leadership pay only through the end of next year.
But a review of that language reveals that it would make a permanent legal change allowing legislative rules -- which are not reviewed by the governor -- to dictate extra pay for members of House and Senate leadership. Romney also opposes a provision of the bill that would make pay increases retroactive to the beginning of the year, said Shawn Feddeman, Romney's press secretary.
"It appears to have a few fatal features," said Feddeman. "The governor was very clear that he does not want to sign away the right of future governors to review compensation matters."
The Senate Democratic whip, Joan M. Menard, said on the Senate floor Thursday that the amendment she was offering would "sunset" the bill at the end of 2004. However, only the legislative rules would be phased out after next year; when the Legislature reconvenes in January 2005, House and Senate members would retain the power to set extra pay without the governor's input.
"This change changed absolutely nothing," said state Representative Paul C. Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat who opposes increasing legislative leaders' ability to hand out pay raises. "If this passes, the governor will be giving up his power now and into the future to review legislation that gives extra compensation for leadership positions. The notion that this last-minute amendment makes any substantive change in the bill is the biggest con job I have seen anyone try to perpetrate in my nine years as a state representative."
Menard acknowledged yesterday that her amendment would have little legal impact, saying it was mostly designed to reassure the public. Since legislative rules must be endorsed at the beginning of every new session of the Legislature, bad ideas regarding pay increases can be undone, she said.
"If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and we can change it," said Menard, a Somerset Democrat. "It makes sense for the House and Senate to be able to organize themselves."
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is pushing the bill as a way to award new chairmen and vice chairmen with pay raises on top of their $53,381 annual base salary. The speaker's lieutenants have said he wants six to eight House members to share about $50,000 in extra money.
Finneran critics say they fear the speaker would use the posts as rewards and to tighten his control on the legislative process.
After Romney said he would turn back an earlier version of the bill, the Senate approved the bill with Menard's amendment last Thursday. House leaders sought to do likewise yesterday, but Demakis and a handful of other rank-and-file members kept it from being considered. The House will debate the measure Thursday.
Backers of the change would face a difficult task in overriding Romney's veto if they stand by the bill as currently written. Republican House leaders say most of the body's 23 Republicans will back Romney and they'll be joined by at least 17 Democrats who consistently oppose Finneran.
In addition, about 15 Democrats in the House Democratic Council will stand up against the move, said Representative Michael E.
Festa,, a Melrose Democrat. Because gubernatorial vetoes must be overridden by a two-thirds majority, 54 members in the 160-seat House can uphold a veto.
"This is not what our constituents expect of us," Festa said. "This is the wrong time and the wrong message."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
The pay-raise bucks will stop with gov
by Wayne Woodlief
Whew! At last, Gov. Mitt Romney has seen the light.
Realizing House and Senate leaders were about to sucker him into relinquishing historic checks and balances over legislative pay raises, Romney now leans toward vetoing bonus-pay bills passed by both houses, an aide said yesterday.
He should be able to sustain a veto since 40 House Democrats voted against Speaker Tom Finneran's power grab in the first place and Romney should be able to swing many Republicans his way.
It ought to be upheld. Firm action fits Romney's reform agenda. The leadership must not be allowed to buy support through bonuses - $7,000 here, $15,000 there, God knows how much in the future - for their Senate and House pets forever.
"It appears the bill passed by the Senate has a few fatal features," said Romney press secretary Shawn Feddeman. They include the door being slammed on any future review of such raises "by the public or future governors," Feddeman said. And that, she added, "is unacceptable" to the current
gov.
Oops. That's the bill approved last Thursday that was being sold as a real concession to Romney. He ought not fear that future governors' hands would be tied, the leadership purred. They had just put in a "sunset" clause to require that the bonus pay be voted on again in two years.
Well, that sounded fine and the buzz on Beacon Hill last Friday was that a deal was in the works if not already sealed. Romney dropped his previously tough talk about a veto and indicated he'd be comfortable with each branch working out its own structural arrangements for the current two-year term.
But that was before Herald reporter Elizabeth Crowley, reform Democrats like Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End) and the governor's own legal beagles began ferreting out the fine print.
They found that what the Senate actually did was to require that the House and Senate vote on bonus pay again when they debate their internal rules at the start of each two-year session.
That's a vote on rules, which are not subject to review by the executive branch; not a vote on a law, which is. Thus a new law this year would have allowed the Legislature to create new positions and set new stipends for them as rules beyond a governor's grasp.
Which means the leadership tried to gull Romney into permanently signing away protections against legislative shenanigans that have existed since the 19th century.
"It was blue smoke and mirrors," said Rushing. "Legislative rules are voted on again anyway at the start of every new two-year term. So nothing really changed on that score. But this bill would repeal a law and be permanent. I'm not sure the governor understands that."
He does now. And he doesn't like it. Feddeman said it takes the current review process "out of statute and puts it into the rules. And there's nothing that puts a governor back in the process."
A veto of this can of worms also would assure that another Romney principle is met: that there'll be no overall increase in legislative pay during this fiscal crisis.
The governor has been back and forth on this issue. He didn't tip his hand while his reorganization plan was pending. He threatened to veto the pay increases - in retaliation, it seemed - after the Senate shot down his streamlining proposals. Then he appeared to have cut a deal to let the pay hikes stand. Now he's leaning toward a veto again.
There should be no more waffling. Finally, it seems the symbolism, politics and civic good are all aligned to kill off this monstrosity.
It was hatched to give the House speaker and the Senate president more power. (How much do they need?) But new committees can be created and their chairmen compensated fairly under full review and scrutiny by the public and the governor.
And it's a lousy time to be ladling out new pay hikes when workers are being laid off all over Massachusetts.
State Sen. Robert L. Hedlund (R-Weymouth), who agrees with that view and warned against any deals with the Democratic leadership, said yesterday, "I'm confident the governor will do the right thing on this."
At last, senator, it appears that he will.
Wayne Woodlief is a member of the Boston Herald staff.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 16, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
The budget bungles should get the boot
House and Senate members of the budget conference committee are still hammering away at the differences between their spending plans for the fiscal year beginning July 1. While making a good effort at reform, each body also has its share of budget-busters, bungles and sheer bloopers. If legislative leaders don't excise the worst of these Gov. Mitt Romney's veto pen will have to finish the job.
The worst of the budget-busters is in health care. Both the Senate and House would restore, at least in part, the unchecked Prescription Advantage program providing drugs for seniors. And Romney cheered them on, pledging part of an unexpected $550 million federal bailout to pay the bill.
But no one has figured out how to pay the bills in the long run. Congress and the Bush administration are working furiously to put a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. Capitol Hill, not Beacon Hill, needs to solve this one.
The same goes for the counterproductive prescription drug discount plan which will hurt biotech jobs and patients alike.
Restoring Medicaid coverage for the long-term unemployed, as the Senate wants to do, will just keep the Medicaid budget growing close to today's unsustainable 15 percent annual rate unless state leaders make painful eligibility and benefit reforms.
The worst bungles are in education. High standards would be dealt a serious blow by a House amendment exempting special education students from MCAS requirements. And Senate and House measures would blow a hole right through the new English immersion law before it's even given a chance to work.
The worst education bungle of all is the Senate plan to impose a moratorium on new charter schools. Denying access to these innovative learning centers is putting the selfish interests of powerful unions before the interests of kids.
The bloopers have to go too. Welfare reform has worked. The Senate plan to substitute education for the work requirement is a slap in the face for thousands who have earned independence and self-respect with a job.
And the Senate may as well have put up a sign that says "go away" to employers with its proposal to force disclosure of sensitive corporate financial information.
Despite all the reforms in both plans, the old saw about a chain being only as strong as its weakest link applies here: The budget is only as good as its worst detail.
Return to
top
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
|