CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Can
democracy return to Massachusetts?
"It's unfathomably arrogant to overturn the will of the people," Romney told reporters, pointing out that the ballot question won the support of 68 percent of voters. "If they think they're smarter than the voters, I'm going to campaign to find people to take their place." ...
"Is he going to stand with the voters or with the children of Massachusetts?" asked Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge), who joined [Rep. Marie] St. Fleur and other legislators at their own news conference following the governor's impromptu press conference....
Romney criticized the teacher unions who campaigned against last year's ballot question but won concessions from legislators who included the changes in their budget and overrode Romney's vetoes. "The special interests have been placed ahead of concerns about kids who have to be fluent in English in today's world," the governor said.
"It's wrong and it's arrogant," Romney said. "We need legislators who will follow the will of the people."
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 14, 2003
Romney to campaign against lawmakers
who overrode his bilingual vetoes
"English immersion passed by an overwhelming majority. To then create loopholes large enough that can be used to abuse that direction is wrong, and it is arrogant," Romney said. "As a result of that, we're going to campaign hard to do everything possible to ensure that the people who are in the Legislature are individuals that will follow the will of the people, particularly when it's so clearly and visibly provided to all of us." ...
Romney vetoed the Legislature's exemption of two-way programs, but both houses overrode him on Monday, though they barely achieved the necessary two-thirds majority. The state Republican Party yesterday mocked the lawmakers who voted against the governor, saying they chose "ego immersion over English immersion."
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Romney hits softening of bilingual law
Says override by legislators was 'arrogance'
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran doesn't command a column of tanks. But the power he wields over his fellow representatives on Beacon Hill is nearly as great. Finneran, elected by a handful of voters in a district of Boston, routinely subverts the will of Massachusetts' 6 million residents as expressed at the ballot box....
Finneran used his leverage, the ability to quash local bills important to uncooperative legislators. He called fence-sitters into his office for private consultations. But he still could not get the two-thirds majority needed for an override....
Finneran, as have previous speakers, uses the ability to award chairmanships and extra pay as a tool to reward friends and punish foes. It serves to limit dissent and a free consideration of how the state allocates its $23 billion budget.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Some will stand up to Finneran
Maybe we are just beaten down by legislators who have isolated themselves from the people who sent them to Beacon Hill. We are resigned to being abused or ignored. It seemed ludicrous when state legislators, in their long process of eliminating the Clean Elections Law, proposed applying it to everyone — except themselves. But, in Massachusetts, the Legislature looks at itself as the ruling class and looks at you — the voter and taxpayer — as the great unwashed, to be elbowed out of the way.
Pam Wilmot of Common Cause said the reason the Legislature hides in private sessions is for "the convenience of the public officials and fearfulness of the public."
But we don't sense any fear — yet. Legislators are still riding high, doing as they please, when they please. That day will end, sooner or later — all oligarchies fall, eventually — but until that time arrives, we are left to peer through a knothole, wondering just what the legislators we pay are doing in the building we own.
A Brockton Enterprise editorial
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Why does the Legislature hide business?
When is House Speaker Thomas Finneran going to realize that voters are fed up with his Tammany Hall-style leadership?
Finneran is so desperate to override the governor's veto of a legislative pay hike that the shirts of some legislators have scratch marks. The pork is flying.
"The speaker has suggested he would refrain from raising pay in this term if members will give him the authority to raise pay without gubernatorial or electoral oversight in perpetuity after that," said Rep. James
Marzilli, D-Arlington.
Just what Finneran needs: More power.
The Cape delegation should sustain the governor's veto.
The Cape Cod Times
Friday, July 11, 2003
Cheers, Jeers: Horse trading on the hill
The legislative pay raise bill is more than a money bill; it is an attempt by the House Speaker to bypass the process of checks and balances in our government. This is basic to the strength of our democracy. Tampering with it is dangerous and foolhardy....
Democracy requires involvement of citizens. After all, decisions made by the legislature affect people's lives, their money, their communities, and their future. The League urges immediate citizen action to sustain the Governor's veto of the pay raise.
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
News Release
July 15, 2003
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"Is he going to stand with the voters or with the children of Massachusetts?"
the increasingly obnoxious Sen. Jarrett Barrios of Cambridge asked.
Apparently the ambitious young
senator feels that voters have abandoned their children, left the kids
for Barrios and his ilk only to defend. The next thing you know,
Barrios and his champions of the teachers union will be charging those
voters with child abuse and threatening to take the kids away from
parents who vote against him.
We've lost Representative Democracy
under "Finneran Rules" and now we've had usurped the citizens' last
resort: Direct Democracy when all else fails through the initiative and referendum process
provided since 1918 by the state constitution. That's the bad news.
The good news is that many more are awakening if
belatedly to our crisis in democracy, have been shocked into action,
have become aware of the necessity to speak out, to fight back in this
eleventh hour of desperation.
To the best of my knowledge, not a single editorial
has defended or supported Finneran's Pay-Raise Power-Grab. Not a single
one. Not even the Boston Globe or Springfield Republican and that says a
lot. Universally, all see it for what it really is; Finneran has fooled
none. Not a one. This time he has gone too far. What started out last
winter as a quiet little scam to further consolidate his power has, with
continuous drum-beating by CLT and Common Cause, now blown up in the
Beacon Hill Machiavelli's face. He's been reduced to damage control,
doing all he can just to save face ... not bringing it up for a vote
only to be further humiliated with a major public defeat.
The Legislature's arrogant defiance time after time
of voters' overwhelming mandates has reached critical mass now
too. It provides Governor Romney and the exiled Republican Party with
the perfect issue on which to stage a coup, to charge and hopefully rout
the Democrat oligarchy in the Legislature.
Mitt Romney has grabbed that flag of democracy and
leads the charge for a rebirth of respect for voters. Let us hope his
battle is victorious, that political balance, democracy, is returned to
oppressed Massachusetts citizens in 2004.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
Your state rep and senator
need to know you oppose the Finneran Pay-Raise Power-Grab and will not
forget how they vote.
This is a critical turning
point in Massachusetts history, a point that will define our very form
of government.
Don't let it pass by without
voicing your opinion. Find
your rep and senator now, and let him or her know where you stand:
for democracy or for a "Finneran Rules" autocracy.
When you call, just tell
whoever answers the phone that you're a constituent and would like the
representative or senator to sustain the governor's veto on the
Finneran Power-Grab. If there's a question, refer them to the CLT memos
that were delivered to their offices on June
25 and July
9.
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 14, 2003
Romney to campaign against lawmakers
who overrode his bilingual vetoes
By Helen Woodman
The same electorate that voted last year to end bilingual education in the public schools will be asked next year to turn out of office those legislators who have now acted to alter the new law over his objections, Gov. Mitt Romney said Tuesday.
On Monday, the House and Senate overrode Romney vetoes of budget sections changing the 2002 voter initiative requiring non-English speaking public school students to be immersed in English-only classes.
"It's unfathomably arrogant to overturn the will of the people," Romney told reporters, pointing out that the ballot question won the support of 68 percent of voters. "If they think they're smarter than the voters, I'm going to campaign to find people to take their place."
Most of the attention centers on the Legislature's insistence that roughly a dozen two-way programs, in which students fluent in English learn a second language and non-English speakers become proficient in English, be allowed to continue and expand. Romney said he's instructed Board of Education Chairman James Peyser to monitor the situation in order "to prevent an explosion of two-way programs."
While Romney believes pupils should learn English first and then participate in two-way programs, the House chairman of the Education Committee, who described herself as a supporter of immersion, pointed out that even California businessman Ron
Unz, a prime mover in the national effort to end the dependence on bilingual education, does not oppose dual language classes.
"Two way immersion is not a problem as long as you follow the intent, which is to teach children English," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur (D-Dorchester). St. Fleur warned against "playing political football with our kids."
"Is he going to stand with the voters or with the children of Massachusetts?" asked Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge), who joined St. Fleur and other legislators at their own news conference following the governor's impromptu press conference. They were accompanied by students representing the success stories of bilingual education and especially of the two-way programs in Cambridge and Boston.
"Our governor wants to have it both ways," Barrios said, recalling that Romney himself backed a separate change in the new law relating to the ability to sue teachers.
Romney criticized the teacher unions who campaigned against last year's ballot question but won concessions from legislators who included the changes in their budget and overrode Romney's vetoes. "The special interests have been placed ahead of concerns about kids who have to be fluent in English in today's world," the governor said.
"It's wrong and it's arrogant," Romney said. "We need legislators who will follow the will of the
people."
Soon after Romney vowed to campaign against lawmakers who voted to retain components of bilingual education, GOP State Committee Chairman Darrell Crate challenged the 25 senators and 81 representatives who accomplished the overrides to explain their votes to their constituents and potential challengers.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Romney hits softening of bilingual law
Says override by legislators was 'arrogance'
By Anand Vaishnav, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney yesterday chastised the Legislature for loosening the state's new voter-approved English immersion law, branding it an act of "unfathomable arrogance" and vowing to oust legislators who backed the move.
Romney, who frequently touted his support of English immersion during last year's campaign, blasted the Legislature's exemption of some schoolchildren from the law as a capitulation to "special interests," including teachers' unions. About 68 percent of Massachusetts voters last year approved the ballot initiative, Question 2, which required that immigrant students be placed in all-English classes instead of bilingual programs. But the Legislature on Monday voted to exempt some provisions of the new law, including "two-way" programs, a form of bilingual education in which students of different cultures learn each other's languages simultaneously.
"English immersion passed by an overwhelming majority. To then create loopholes large enough that can be used to abuse that direction is wrong, and it is arrogant," Romney said. "As a result of that, we're going to campaign hard to do everything possible to ensure that the people who are in the Legislature are individuals that will follow the will of the people, particularly when it's so clearly and visibly provided to all of us."
Romney drew a distinction between his support of Question 2 and his opposition of the Clean Elections law, both of which voters had approved. He pointed to a nonbinding referendum last fall showing that 75 percent of voters opposed using taxpayer money for political campaigns, which Clean Elections permitted for candidates who abided by spending requirements. Because of that referendum, Romney said, he had no problem joining the Legislature in repealing the Clean Elections law, which voters approved in 1998.
Still, some Democratic lawmakers said it is Romney whose allegiance to voters' mandates is questionable. They pointed out that the governor had promised to remove a piece of Question 2 that lets parents sue teachers for not following English immersion.
Romney has acknowledged that he disapproved of the lawsuit provision, but said it remains intact. Instead, he supported regulations that make it difficult to sue teachers. Yesterday, he ordered Board of Education chairman James A. Peyser to monitor two-way programs to ensure that schools do not use them as a loophole to keep traditional bilingual classes in place. Question 2 permits two-way programs, but would have restricted participation by younger students, a hurdle that supporters say would kill the classes.
"Governor Romney now says it violates the will of the voters to make far more minor changes," said state Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat. "Governor 'Both Ways' can't have it both ways."
The Legislature also overrode Romney's veto of a measure letting kindergartners bypass immersion and, with extra help, go straight into mainstream classes. Also, the Legislature boosted state oversight of districts to monitor how well their limited-English students perform academically. Despite those moves, many of the state's 51,000 limited-English children still will be in English immersion classes this fall, educators predicted. Question 2 permits waivers that would let children stay in traditional bilingual education, in which students learn subjects in their native tongues while easing into English. But children younger than 10 face more hurdles to get waivers.
Bilingual education has emerged as one of the areas of deepest disagreement between Romney and legislative leaders. This week's testy exchanges promised that the battle to implement English immersion in Massachusetts has not abated, a year after a heated campaign over the merits of educating the state's 51,000 limited-English students. Question 2 was financed partly by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron
Unz, who has led successful campaigns to overturn bilingual education in California and Arizona, but failed in Colorado.
Romney vetoed the Legislature's exemption of two-way programs, but both houses overrode him on Monday, though they barely achieved the necessary two-thirds majority. The state Republican Party yesterday mocked the lawmakers who voted against the governor, saying they chose "ego immersion over English immersion."
State Representative Marie P. St. Fleur, cochairwoman of the Legislature's joint education committee, brushed off Romney's challenge to campaign against lawmakers. "If we get trapped into making decisions on threats, then we have failed," said St. Fleur, a Dorchester Democrat.
Two-way programs exist in 11 public schools enrolling about 1,800 students. In such classes, English- and non-English-speakers learn one another's languages at the same time -- something many parents say they want in a world that increasingly demands global communication skills.
"My 6-year-old can read in Spanish and English, and so can all of his little friends. And they're 6," said Maria
Jobin-Leeds, whose children attend the Amigos School, a two-way school in Cambridge. "This is the best I can do for my kids."
Romney and other immersion backers said they too want students to be bilingual, but that immigrant students should learn English first.
"The law itself is clear," said Lincoln Tamayo, former chairman of Unz's Massachusetts campaign. "We don't want 30 percent Spanish, 50 percent Spanish, or whatever. It is full English immersion. This is diametrically opposed to what we voted for in November."
Globe correspondent Steve Eder contributed to this report.
Return to
top
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Editorial
Some will stand up to Finneran
Remember the photograph of the lone Chinese student standing before a column of tanks? It was a stirring reminder that it takes individual acts of bravery to confront tyranny.
Fortunately, we in Massachusetts don't have to worry about an oppressive army crushing the fledgling forces of democracy.
Or do we?
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran doesn't command a column of tanks. But the power he wields over his fellow representatives on Beacon Hill is nearly as great. Finneran, elected by a handful of voters in a district of Boston, routinely subverts the will of Massachusetts' 6 million residents as expressed at the ballot box.
The voters wanted publicly funded "Clean Elections." But Finneran didn't. So he made sure the House took a few years to "study" the issue, then underfunded the program so it was sure to fail. Finneran's claim is the voters didn't know what they were voting for.
Well it took some courage but representatives finally stood up to Finneran in his latest attempt at a power grab. Finneran got a bill passed that would allow him and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini to create new legislative committees and hand out pay raises to their chairman at any time without the approval of the governor.
Romney vetoed the bill and last week, Finneran's first try at overriding the veto failed to garner enough votes.
Finneran used his leverage, the ability to quash local bills important to uncooperative legislators. He called fence-sitters into his office for private consultations. But he still could not get the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The chances of getting that override become less likely as time passes.
Finneran, as have previous speakers, uses the ability to award chairmanships and extra pay as a tool to reward friends and punish foes. It serves to limit dissent and a free consideration of how the state allocates its $23 billion budget.
So those local legislators who stood up to Finneran are well deserving of our praise. They are: Sen. Bruce E.
Tarr, R-Gloucester; Sen. Susan C. Tucker, D-Andover; Rep. Barbara
L'Italien, D-Andover; Rep. Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury; Rep. Doug W. Petersen, D-Marblehead; Rep. Bradford R. Hill, R-Ipswich; Rep. Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly and Rep. Bradley H. Jones, R-North Reading.
And here are the local legislators who obediently fell into line to grant Finneran his wish: Rep. Joyce
Spiliotis, D-Peabody; Rep. David Torrisi, D-North Andover; Rep. Theodore C.
Speliotis, D-Danvers; Rep. Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill; Rep. William P.
Lantigua, D-Lawrence; Rep. J. Michael Ruane, D-Salem; Rep. Arthur D.
Broadhurst, D-Methuen; Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport; Sen. Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody; Sen. Steven A.
Baddour, D-Methuen, and Rep. Anthony J. Verga, D-Gloucester.
Return to
top
The Brockton Enterprise
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Editorial
Why does the Legislature hide business?
What would you think if your local city council or board of selectmen met in secret sessions — dozens of times — to discuss everything from building permits to the budget?
You'd be pretty upset that your elected officials were hiding behind closed doors while deliberating matters that have a direct effect on your life. Yet, that is what the state Legislature does whenever it suits its purpose — and no one seems to be worked up over it. They should be.
The Legislature passed the open meeting law in 1958 and reworked it in 1975. It is designed to allow the public to have input into public policy and keep people informed about deliberations and decisions. Yet, when it passed the law, the Legislature did one very sneaky thing: It exempted itself from the law.
Legislators have taken full advantage of this devious loophole, meeting secretly more than two dozen times since 2000 to discuss items ranging from spending millions of public dollars on a new baseball stadium for the Red Sox to raising taxes by more than $1 billion. The legislative "leadership" posts guards at all entrances to their meeting room, lest the masses try to find out what is going on in the gilded chamber. No public records are kept of discussions.
Few other states allow such insidious practices. So why do we tolerate it in Massachusetts? We get angry when local selectmen meet in a coffee shop to discuss municipal matters, so why not when the Legislature locks the doors and tells the public to get lost?
Maybe we are just beaten down by legislators who have isolated themselves from the people who sent them to Beacon Hill. We are resigned to being abused or ignored. It seemed ludicrous when state legislators, in their long process of eliminating the Clean Elections Law, proposed applying it to everyone — except themselves. But, in Massachusetts, the Legislature looks at itself as the ruling class and looks at you — the voter and taxpayer — as the great unwashed, to be elbowed out of the way.
Pam Wilmot of Common Cause said the reason the Legislature hides in private sessions is for "the convenience of the public officials and fearfulness of the public."
But we don't sense any fear — yet. Legislators are still riding high, doing as they please, when they please. That day will end, sooner or later — all oligarchies fall, eventually — but until that time arrives, we are left to peer through a knothole, wondering just what the legislators we pay are doing in the building we own.
Return to
top
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
News Release
July 15, 2003
Voters Need to Challenge Legislators to Stand Up to the House Speaker
To Sustain the Governor's Veto of the Pay Raise Bill or Face the Voters at the Ballot Box to Explain Their Unwillingness to Preserve a Basic Principle of our Democracy
The House Speaker's attempt to consolidate his power to give pay raises to his favorites without the Governor's or state Senate's approval transcends this issue, no matter how odious this piece of legislation is," said Madhu Sridhar, president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.
The legislative pay raise bill is more than a money bill; it is an attempt by the House Speaker to bypass the process of checks and balances in our government. This is basic to the strength of our democracy. Tampering with it is dangerous and foolhardy.
Sridhar said that the League is urging its members and all citizens to take action now to stop the House Speaker. They will call, e-mail, and write to their legislators demanding that they vote to sustain the Governor's repeal of the pay raise.
"This is our first line of defense," stated Sridhar. "If citizens cannot get legislators to be responsive to them and sustain the Governor's veto of this bill, they will have to demand an explanation from their legislators at the next election. Voters will challenge legislative candidates on their position on the powerful House Speaker. Voters will demand independence from their legislators. We lost clean elections and now the voters are losing more of their authority."
Democracy requires involvement of citizens. After all, decisions made by the legislature affect people's lives, their money, their communities, and their future. The League urges immediate citizen action to sustain the Governor's veto of the pay raise.
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
|