The debate about the transparency of the legislative process on Beacon Hill continues. Lack of transparency was noted during this past year while the budget was being debated behind closed doors. Our legislators said this process was necessary for the Senate and House to decide on a compromise bill. Did the public really have a choice? What about other major decisions? What about public hearings, when the public testifies on the issues before the committee members...who aren't present (many times waiting 3-5 hours to speak in front of 2-3 committee members of perhaps a total of 14-17)?
A survey by the Boston University State House program of 19 major legislative committees that shape and move legislation found this process increasingly takes place outside the public view. [The Milford Daily News]
Among the findings:
-
The staff for 15 of the committees polled said some voting is done through emails rather than in open executive sessions. The staff of 10 committees said the votes were not available to the public. State law requires that roll-call votes in executive sessions be recorded and made public. But committee rules do not address email voting.
-
Minutes and other details of committee meetings were not available from 18 of the committees, according to their staff. State law does not require such documentation of legislative committees, although it is required by other Massachusetts commissions and boards.
-
Among the lack of documentation are records of attendance by committee members. Observers say fewer committee members now show up for public hearings as the work of the committees takes place through phone discussion or email polls.
And here's more about legislative debate, in general: ...neutral observers such as [Michael] Widmer note a trend toward more control emanating from the offices of the House speaker and Senate president.
“I wouldn’t say that this session has had less debate than recent years, but part of the trend towards more power in the leadership has been less floor debate, particularly in the House,” said Widmer. “A lot of the debates are taking place in the legislative caucuses behind closed doors.”
The Commonwealth may perhaps do legislation better than some states, but we can clearly be more transparent and accountable to the public than we are currently.
When does lobbying reform go too far overboard and to the detriment of all? The Obama Administration may have reached that point. Lobbying, just like other noble professions, is performed by intelligent, thoughtful, and dedicated people who believe in their issue and who follow moral codes of conduct. Just like with other professions, not everyone matches this level of performance. That shouldn't be the reason to paint all lobbyist with the same negative brush, putting constraints on careers.
Secretary William Galvin has issued a new opinion on the lobbying law which adds clarity to certain key issues that have concerned many non-profits in the past few months. In a January 21, 2010 opinion rendered to attorney Roger Donoghue, Lobbyist Section Director Alan Cote stated unequivocally that a communication with a covered executive or legislative official IS required in order to meet the statutory provisions for registering as a lobbyist. In other words, back-room staff, who never talk with legislators, are not lobbyists.
The wellbeing of our communities across Massachusetts hinges on our ability to work together with our government in finding ways on how to support the public structures we have built and maintained for decades. Public education, clean water, public security, clean streets, snow and trash removal, prevention programs among many others are some public structures that we all value and seek to continue funding. These public structures are what make Massachusetts competitive.
In an 
We know that policymakers make different decisions when they are watched by their constituents. In order to make that policy-making process more transparent, Governor Deval Patrick has filed "