THE LARGER PROBLEM IN THE MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE

By Representatives Matthew C. Patrick, Thomas M. Stanley, Lida E. Harkins, William G. Greene, Jr., Will N. Brownsberger, Steven J. D’Amico, Joseph R. Driscoll and John F. Quinn

January 21, 2010

We want the House to become a functional democracy. We clearly see that consolidation of power in the Speaker has given the Massachusetts House a less than democratic form of governance and we believe that the most important thing we can do as members is point out what is so obvious that it has been taken for granted. We want each bill deliberated in the committees and referred to the floor based on merit where it will be fully debated.

The Speaker is preventing members of the Massachusetts House from being able to see how their budget is being spent and specifically, the legal expenses we provided for the former Speaker’s case. This is a symptom of a much larger problem that confronts our representative democracy in Massachusetts. Over time most power in the House has been consolidated in the office of the Speaker.

Save the Date: Saturday, December 5th, 9am-4pm

Rethinking Sewers on Cape Cod: Better, Faster, Cheaper Alternatives

What: Day-long workshop featuring case studies of successful cluster systems from around the U.S. and new wastewater management planning approaches that achieve environmental and public health protection, and community development.

Where: Mashpee Senior Center 26 Frank Hicks Drive When: Saturday, December 5th, 9am – 4pm

Co-sponsored by: Representative Matt Patrick, Clean Water Action & Clean Water Fund and Coalition for AlternativeWastewater Treatment

The projected costs of sewers are staggering for Cape towns, so it is important to take a more careful look at the alternatives. Conventional sewers are very expensive, but also have adverse consequences, such as disruptions in water hydrology and uncontrolled growth and development. They are also projected to take twenty to thirty years to achieve their goals of removing nitrogen from the estuaries and embayments of Cape Cod.

We believe that cluster systems, in particular, offer superior alternatives to sewers on the Cape. Cluster systems can meet the performance requirements of the nitrogen TMDL's and also be substantially cheaper than sewers. They can be installed in "hot spots" and show faster recovery in the estuaries. That's a win for the homeowner and a win for the environment. Our goal is to provide Cape Cod residents and town leadership with more information about how cluster systems in other states have been working.

We'll also show how comprehensive wastewater management planning should include the full range of financial, environmental, and community concerns. Other parts of the country are proceeding with "21st Century" technologies and designs. We're concerned that Massachusetts engineering firms are not paying enough attention to that progress. We're hoping to fill that information gap and provide Cape Cod towns with "Better, Faster, Cheaper" alternatives.

Our speakers will be: Introductions: Valerie Nelson, Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment, Jim Kreissl, retired EPA -- Office of Research and Development.

Cluster System Case Studies -- cost, reliability, maintenance, public acceptance: Craig Goodwin, Northwest Cascade Mary Clark, Orenco Systems, Inc. Craig Lindell, Aquapoint

Comprehensive Wastewater Management: Jim Kreissl

Wastewater Management and Smart Growth: Juli Beth HindsVHB

TMDL's and clusters: Pio Lombardo, Lombardo Assoc.

There are fifty sponsors of H 2127.  That is a significant number for any bill that comes before us and one has to ask why, after all these years this bill has been before the legislature in one form or another, does one quarter of our legislature still support this bill.  Looking down the list one sees the usual liberal members.  But there are also conservative members of the legislature that have signed on as sponsors.  Why

Can it be that health care premiums continue to go up even after significant reform in 2006?  Could it be that we continue to look to other industrial nations that have national, single payer health care plans that are half the cost of our national average?  Could it be that these other industrialized nations provide their citizens with better health care in spite of their lesser costs?  Could it be that the average health care premium in the nation has gone up by 130% since the year 1999 while wages have gone up only 38 percent and inflation 28 percent?[i]  Premiums are projected to hit an extraordinary average of $24,000 per family by 2019.[ii]

Could the reason this bill enjoys so much support by legislators be that only 60 to 70 percent of our health care dollars actually are spent on health care?  Could it be that legislators deal directly with much of the discontent of constituents with the current revamped system?  It covers more people but puts many into financial distress.

We should ask why out of all the possible methods of saving health care dollars, we, in Massachusetts and Washington, have not considered single payer health care systems?  If nothing else it’s a tribute to the lobbying power of the health care industry.  In Washington, there are about 6 lobbyists employed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to every legislator.  The money they are spending is fantastic.

The amount of state and local taxes paid in Massachusetts as a share of state personal income fell from 10.6 percent in Fiscal Year 2006 to 10.5 percent in FY 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's annual survey of State and Local Government Finances.  Massachusetts dropped in rank from 35th among all states in 2006 to 38th in 2007 (including the District of Columbia), according to the Census data released today.

Measuring taxes as a share of total personal income allows for a meaningful comparison among states. The numbers released today show that in FY 2007 the share of income paid in taxes for state and local public services was less in Massachusetts than in 36 other states and the District of Columbia.  To get the full story go to www.massbudget.org.

          Today the Massachusetts legislature is not a democratic institution.  The birth place of western democracy in the new world is governed by a legislature that is a dictatorship masquerading as a democratic institution.  Through the centuries, the position of Massachusetts Speaker of the House has evolved into an imperial one, more akin to royalty than the leader of a democratic body.  The Speaker of the House determines everything.  He decides which bills are brought to the floor for a debate and which ones will never see the light of day.  He determines the outcome of those bills before they are even debated. 

            If you cross the Speaker by not voting for him for example, he can hold up even the most minor of home rule petitions that are necessary for the municipalities in your district to function.  If you have a bill that can solve a problem or benefit the commonwealth you had better convince the Speaker if you ever want it to pass.  Because of this fact, bills don’t often pass on their merit.  Bills pass because it benefits the Speaker’s agenda or there is an emergency in the Commonwealth.

            Along with the legislative agenda, the Speaker controls everything in the House.  He controls all appointments from powerful Ways and Means Chair and Majority Leader to all committee chairs and vice chairs some of which receive extra salary.  He gives each member his committee assignments.  He also controls all of the staff.  He even determines who gets help with their re-election campaign.

            When you are elected into the Massachusetts House, you are told over and over again that you always protect the institution.  That tradition accounts for the reticence among members to speak any ill of what goes on in the House.  However, that “speak no ill of the House” tradition only perpetuates the dictatorship, its human pecking order and our large dysfunctional family.