|
Where We Stand
Government: Legislature
Goal:
An effective state government; a strong and highly visible legislative
branch, districted on the basis of population into contiguous, compact, single-member
districts by an appointed, bipartisan commission and that maintains its traditional role
as a democratic forum. (1967)
The League supports:
• single-member districts to carry out the one-person, one-vote concept (effected
1974)
• an appointed, bipartisan districting commission (1973)
• a smaller membership in the House of Representatives (reduction by at least
one-third of the 240 members) (effected 1978)
• a salary level high enough to attract and keep qualified legislators (1967)
• the principle of free petition with some modification in procedures for handling
bills during the second year of the biennium (1967)
• strict adherence to the rules of late filing
• joint committees organized to reflect major areas of legislative concern with
majority and minority parties making their own committee assignments (1967)
• adequate legal and research help
• the Legislative Research Bureau (1967)
• legislative procedures and a calendar that promote both efficiency and democracy
(1988)
• a requirement that the Legislature prorogue (adjourn) no later than the election in
state election years (1988)
The League opposes:
• limiting the legislative session to less than seven months (1988)
• a filing fee (1967)
League action
Much about the Legislature has changed since the League completed its study
in 1965: sessions are longer, more legislators consider themselves full-time, more bills
are filed, issues are more complex and technical, more women and minorities hold office.
Massachusetts is one of nine states with Legislatures that may be considered full-time.
Staff and office space
Since the reduction in the size of the House of Representatives in 1978, each
representative has an office, secretarial assistance, at least one aide and a higher
salary. For many years, senators have had adequate office space and staff assistance.
LWVM supports enlightened personnel practices for legislative staff and the equitable
assignment of office space and supplies. The Legislature considers approximately 7000
bills each year. Legislative committees and individual legislators need competent staff to
provide assistance in law revision and codification, bill drafting, budgetary and fiscal
analysis, research and planning.
The Legislature should establish uniform standards for hiring, supervision, hours and
salaries of legislative staff. Individual legislators should retain the right to select
their own aides.
Legislative compensation
The League supports adequate salary levels for legislators with procedures to determine
compensation. A permanent bipartisan commission to establish salaries for the legislative,
executive and judicial branches should be established. Salary changes should be
deliberated in open sessions and adopted by roll call vote. Legislative pay raises should
not be tied to collective bargaining contracts.
The League opposes the large salary differential between the legislative leadership and
rank-and-file members. Although the speaker, Senate president and some committee chairs
should receive additional compensation, their current salaries are disproportionately
high, both in relation to members of the Massachusetts House and Senate and to the
compensation of their peers in other state Legislatures.
Committees
All 22 substantive committees of the Massachusetts General Court are joint committees of
the House and Senate. Each committee is organized around a governmental matter (for
example, health care, taxation). Each branch also has three standing committees: Bills in
Third Reading, Rules, and Ways and Means.
The League supports the use of joint substantive committees, but favors a reduction in
their number and a reassignment of responsibilities. As much as possible, committee
assignments should provide equal workloads for legislators, take into account their
interests and knowledge, and reflect the composition of the Legislature, including
geographic distribution.
The League supports orderly committee procedures and adequate physical facilities for
committee deliberations. Records of committee work and hearings should be kept. Committee
hearings should provide ample opportunity for testimony by both proponents and opponents
of bills. Executive sessions (committee deliberations other than hearings) should
continue to be open to the public except when closed for good cause by committee vote.
In the case of bills reintroduced in the second session of the biennium, there should
be adequate opportunity for written public comment if the requirement for a formal
committee hearing is waived.
Rules of procedure
The League’s 1987-88 study of the length of the legislative session included a review
of legislative procedures. Members reaffirmed their support of legislative procedures and
a calendar that promote both efficiency and democracy. The League supports: setting the
calendar for formal sessions, committee hearings and executive sessions well in advance to
allow members, officials, and the public to plan ahead; measures to minimize conflicts in
legislators’ schedules; using the intersession period, if there is one, for
legislative business such as hearings, planning and printing of new bills.
The League also endorses measures to reduce the large number of bills filed, including
stricter filing deadlines, carryover into the second session of the biennium of all bills
not yet acted upon, limiting refiles in the second year of the biennium, and statements of
subject and intent that are combined with similar proposals into a single bill (called
"short form" bills).
The League opposes limiting free petition and restricting the number of bills filed by
individual legislators. The League supports implementation of home rule as a means of
limiting local and special bills and also supports greater administrative authority over
purely administrative matters for the same reason.
Several League-advocated changes have been made: legislators must have a copy of the
budget well in advance of debate; House and Senate minority leaders appoint members of the
minority party to committees; constitutional amendments must be reported on by joint
committees no later than the last Wednesday in April.
Some rule changes were adopted by the House in 1985: nominations of committee members
by the speaker and minority leader are subject to ratification by the appropriate party
caucus; committee hearings and staffing levels are not scheduled in conflict with formal
sessions of the House; there is provision for the discharge of bills from the committees
on Bills in Third Reading and Ways and Means within 45 days of commitment by a vote of 40
percent of the members; House financial accounts must be audited each year; general
appropriation bills and capital outlay bills must be in print in advance of debate.
Senate rules changes were more modest: audits of Senate finances are made periodically,
but "periodic" is not defined; all bills must be in print 24 hours before a vote
is taken.
In 1989, the Senate made discharge of bills from the Committee on Bills in Third
Reading easier, by a majority vote rather than two-thirds, and after 30 days rather than
45 days. The Senate also voted to eliminate lame duck sessions and to allow bills that
have passed one legislative branch to carry over to the next legislative session rather
than starting the deliberation process over in both houses.
Both branches adopted rules to prevent late-night sessions except by vote to suspend
the rules. Deadlines are 8 p.m. in the Senate and 10 p.m. in the House.
Rules of procedure are not law and are adopted one biennium at a time. They can be
suspended or amended at any time.
Length of session
As a result of its 1987-88 study of the length of the legislative session, the League
dropped its unconditional opposition to a constitutional or statutory limit on the length
of legislative sessions and agreed to support measures to eliminate lame-duck
(post-elective) sessions. The League continues to oppose a constitutional or statutory
provision that would limit the session to less than seven months. Rules of procedure that
allow for an orderly flow of legislation, together with discipline on the part of
leadership and members, are preferable to a constitutional amendment limiting the length
of the legislative session.
If a limit is imposed on the length of legislative sessions, there should be flexible
provisions for calling special sessions. In the study LWVM members agreed that:
• the governor should have the power to call a special session; the Legislature
should have the power to call itself into special session by petition of a majority of
both houses
• special sessions should be called when the welfare of the Commonwealth requires it
• the Legislature should be able to add to the agenda of a session called by the
governor
The present provisions for calling special sessions are consistent with these criteria.
Filing fee
Every Massachusetts citizen has the constitutional right to submit bills to the
Legislature. As recently as 1965, one-third of all bills filed were such free petitions.
Today fewer than 5 percent are in that category.
The League supports the principle of free petition and opposes as discriminatory a fee
for filing a citizen petition. The League does, however, favor carryover of bills to the
second session of the biennium with a limit on refiles in the second session (see rules of
procedure above).
Apportionment
The Massachusetts constitution gives the responsibility to the General Court for shaping
districts from which representatives and senators are elected. Redistricting occurs every
10 years. After the 1990 federal census, the Legislature began to redraw congressional and
legislative districts. The League will monitor the process for both the Legislature and
Congress to ensure that redistricting is done in a fair manner based on the
one-person-one-vote concept and that districts reflect racial and ethnic populations. LWVM
supports single-member districts and redistricting by an appointed bipartisan commission.
Multi-member districts were eliminated many years ago, but the goal of a non-partisan
district commission remains elusive.
Background
• 1967: Consensus was reached on some specific ways to modernize the structure of
the Legislature. Several goals have been reached, for instance the electronic roll call in
the House of Representatives.
• 1978: The size of the House of Representatives was reduced from 240 to 160
members as a result of an LWVM initiative campaign.
• 1987-88: One-year study of the length of legislative sessions and related issue
of legislative procedures resulted in a modification of the League’s position on the
length of sessions and an explicit statement in support of procedural change.
Previous Page: Home Rule
Back to Where We Stand: Government
Next Page: Public Personnel
|
