Making the Budget Process More Transparent - Back to the Future.

What do you think about lobbying the Legislature to change the Joint Rules to say that in each Chamber the the Budget ought to be debated in order, line item by line item videoed live and stored for later viewing. Anyway, that's the way we used to do in the good old days before "rules reform". The galleries were packed with the press and other observers, paid and volunteer who often stuck with the whole process and attended the open conference committees as well. 

I tried the idea out at the League of Women Voters lobby day today and got some positive feedback from the audience and some mixed reviews from a very short list of legislators and staff so I though I would try and get some feedback here.

In the SHNS yesterday, DeLeo repeated his insistence that the state needs to reform its ethics and pension rules to win back the trust of a public turned sour on Beacon Hill integrity, after a string of scandals and DiMasi’s departure amid ethics questions. “The level of confidence, shall I say to be nice, of our constituency is at a low point,” the speaker said. DeLeo said the only way to reverse that is to “show that we’re serious about ethics reform and pension reform, in particular.” He said he planned to “roll out a package” within the next month or so to address those issues.

I was sharing panel duties at the LWV with Pam Wilmont from Common Cause, and Janet Domenitz from Mass PIRG whose respective organizations have pushed for a more open government for a long time, and have data rich websites complete with specific policy recommendations.

Having only opinions supported by experience, I found myself waxing nostalgic (google that) about how the old open budget debate process made legislators more accountable and allowed for more efficient and effective lobbying. We used to organize our grassroots networks to call in the night of the scheduled debate to tell their rep or senator they would be watching. And it proved the 1st rule of lobbying - policy makers make different decisions when watched by the affected constituency.

And yes there was some silly shenanigans by sleepy and/or inebriated members of the Great and General Court.  Cheap price to pay I think.