We would appreciate if the press mentioned MassResistance in their exposes, since we are the ones who have been reporting on all of this at length.
It sounds like you have referenced our latest report, since you mentioned Rep. Donato's recent corruption, which we just reported on:
Here are our outstanding reports on the matter:
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt10/informal_sessions/about.html
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen5/24c/MA-citizens-vs-corrupt-Legislature/index.html
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen5/24c/MA-activists-go-to-legislators/index.html
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen5/24d/One-MA-state-rep-passes-budget-bill/index.html (Rep. Donato is mentioned here)
Threat To Democracy? Look No Further Than The Massachusetts Legislature
By NBP Editorial Board | November 26, 2024, 10:36 EST
During the recent presidential election many Democrats claimed that now-President-elect Donald Trump was a “threat to democracy.”
For those unfamiliar with the term, that’s the system of government in which the people govern themselves, usually through elected representatives who vote up or down on various proposals.
But in Massachusetts, the most obvious threat to democracy is the Massachusetts Legislature.
Each year, the state legislature concludes what it calls its “formal sessions” on or about July 31. In theory, this is the period when the serious business of the legislature gets done – when state legislators approve or reject or (most likely) ignore proposed legislation that would affect the lives of a large number of people.
That’s not so different from how many other states do it. In those places, the legislature meets, conducts its business, and then ends its business, and the legislators go home.
Except that in Massachusetts, after July 31 begins what the state legislature calls “informal sessions.” Legislation can still be passed, but in theory it’s supposed to be noncontroversial stuff, of the type that no legislator would object to — like commendations for Eagle Scouts, for instance.
Yet on Monday, November 25, the Massachusetts House of Representatives approved a bill that would tilt the property tax burden toward commercial property owners and away from residential property owners in the city of Boston, shifting a portion of the burden from homeowners to business owners.
What was the tally?
Well, that’s not a matter of public record, because the rules of the Massachusetts House of Representatives require that no roll calls be taken during so-called informal sessions.
But the margin of victory couldn’t have been greater than 12-0. Twelve is the number of state representatives who were in the chamber at the time, according to State House News Service. Out of 160 state representatives, possibly 12 voted for the bill, and that was enough.
Yet even that number doesn’t seem correct. For when it came time to take procedural and substantive votes on the bill, the member presiding over the session, state Representative Paul Donato (D-Medford, said the following:
“All-those-in-favor-say-Aye-all-those-opposed-say-Nay-the-Ayes-have-it.”
This formula (which isn’t limited to Massachusetts) doesn’t even allow time for a voice vote.
In other words, the bill passed because one man said it passed.
Article 33 of the Massachusetts Constitution says a majority of the members need to be present “for the transaction of business,” which is known as a quorum. A majority of 160 is 81, which the Massachusetts House of Representatives rules says is necessary to have a quorum for formal sessions.
Yet the rules of the chamber also say “a quorum shall be presumed to be present unless otherwise doubted.”
So if no one doubts a quorum, almost any number of state representatives can be presumed to form a quorum, which is particularly important for underattended informal sessions.
On Thursday, November 21 and Friday, November 22, state Representative David DeCoste (R-Norwell) doubted a quorum on the Boston property tax bill, so the House couldn’t pass it. Give credit to DeCoste for blocking it. But he wasn’t there on Monday, and no one who was there doubted a quorum, so it could pass, and it did.
If the Massachusetts Senate plays a similar game, the owners of commercial property in Boston will see their property taxes go up, not because a majority of voters approved it in a referendum, and not because a majority of state legislators approved it in the state legislature, but because a handful of state legislators were present in the chamber while a functionary appointed by the Speaker of the House said some words and declared it approved.
This is government by charade.
No comments:
Post a Comment