21

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2021 Page 21 BHRC | FROM PAGE 17 “The conference report … upholds our Senate values, charts a hopeful path forward for our commonwealth and more importantly reflects our priorities,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Mike Rodrigues (D-Westport) to lead off the debate on the Senate floor. “We maintain fiscal responsibility and ensure our commonwealth maintains healthy reserves for years to come. It safeguards the health and wellness of our most vulnerable populations and new supports for children and families.” “It invests in K-12 education, early education and childcare, housing, mental health, public health and other areas to ensure our citizens and our communities will benefit equitably as we recover from the lasting impacts of the pandemic,” continued Rodrigues. “We address long term liabilities and make down payments to fulfill future obligations. This fiscally responsible and forward-looking budget doubles down on our commitment to build an equitable recovery and addresses our critical needs as we work to getting back to a new better.” Although she ultimately voted for the budget, Sen. Diana DiZoglio (D-Methuen) said during the debate on the Senate floor that she objected to the fact that legislators were given only a few hours to read the 434-page bill before voting on it. The budget was released late Thursday night and was voted on Friday afternoon. DiZoglio said that positioning members to take a vote on something they did not get adequate time to review is not acceptable. “If we keep doing this over and over again, it’s not going to magically become acceptable,” she said. “The fact that we didn’t get even a day to review this is very disappointing. But what’s more disappointing … is the fact that those in our communities who have a stake in what happens in the bill before us, those it will impact most — our schools, our elderly populations, those who are coming from positions of powerlessness, those folks, probably many of them, still don’t even know that we’re taking this bill up today. And yet we continue to call what happens in this chamber part of the democratic process.” (A “Yes” vote is for the budget.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle Yes Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes ADOPT NEW HOUSE RULES (H 3930) House 129-29, approved a set of new House rules that will go into effect on October 1, 2021. Until then, the House will continue to operate under the emergency COVID-19 rules it adopted last year. Without this bill, the emergency rules would expire on July 15. The new rules package includes requiring both formal and informal sessions of the House to be livestreamed; giving House committee chairs the ability to allow for both in-person and virtual hearing testimony from the public; allowing any member serving on active reserve military duty to cast a House vote remotely; and requiring committees to publish names of representatives who vote against advancing a bill through committee but not the names of legislators who vote in favor of or do not vote on the matter. “The challenges over the last 14 months have made us work and function differently,” said House Rules Committee chair Rep. Bill Galvin (D-Canton) during debate on the House floor. “This experience has shown us a new way to operate and to utilize technology, both procedurally and administratively. As we emerge from the worst of the pandemic, we have a unique opportunity to incorporate lessons learned, thereby providing for a more efficient, flexible and accessible legislative process.” House GOP Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading) said that the few changes do not go far enough: “I offered multiple amendments to help shed more light on the way the House of Representatives and its committees conduct their business, but those amendments were struck down, leaving me with no choice but to reject the underlying rules package.” (A Yes” vote is for the House rules package. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle Yes TERM LIMITS FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (H 3930) House 35-125, rejected an amendment that would reinstate a 2009 rule that prohibited any representative from serving as speaker of the House for more than eight consecutive years. The rule was repealed in 2015. “Instituting term limits is about putting in place the guardrails to help ensure a more democratic and responsive House,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Acton). “One that fosters fair and thoughtful competition required of a strong democratic entity. It is important to so many of our constituents across the state that we bring diverse and distinct experiences, identities and geographic representations to the table and I believe that term limits for the speaker will help us do this more effectively.” “While I appreciate different ideas to continuously improve our Legislature, I do not support term limits,” said Rep. Jim O’Day (D-West Boylston). “Term limits can place the House at a severe disadvantage during negotiations with the governor and other officials, which is not beneficial for advancing legislation or for our districts.” “The speaker holds the most powerful office in the House of Representatives, but all 160 Representatives stand as equals when it comes to representing their constituents,” said Rep. Brad Jones. “Setting term limits on the speaker’s office is a way to prevent too much power from being consolidated in the hands of any one individual over time. Reinstating the term limits that were repealed in 2015 would send a powerful message that the House is committed to inclusion and the periodic transition of power.” Rep. Jack Lewis (D-Framingham), speaking on the House floor during debate, talked about campaigning, knocking on doors and asking his constituents which issues are important to them. “I’ll tell you what I’ve never heard when knocking on those doors: ‘Jack, I’m concerned that there are no term limits for the Massachusetts’ speaker of the House.’ Never once,” said Lewis. “And I urge all of my colleagues today to think back to those days … sometimes meeting our constituents for the first time. Did any of you ever hear one of them ever bring this up as an issue? I’m confident that nearly universally, the answer is no.” (A “Yes” vote is for term limits. A “No” vote is against term limits.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No ALLOW MEMBERS TWO HOURS TO VOTE IN COMMITTEE (H 3930) House 35-124, rejected an amendment that would give legislators two hours to vote electronically when casting a vote on a bill in committee. “Members are often given very little time to respond to committee polls, even when the poll involves multiple bills and complicated issues,” said sponsor GOP House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “One of the more glaring examples … was a recent House Ways and Means poll that gave members just 16 minutes to review a 38page supplemental budget and a separate election reprecincting proposal. That is simply not enough time to properly review and understand these bills.” “The Republican caucus has consistently pushed for greater transparency during the rules debate of the House because the more information the public has access to the better,” said Rep. Todd Smola (R-Warren). “Having a two-hour window to read and comprehend legislation before it is voted out of committee is not asking for the world. This would help members digest bills and make informed decisions on what is before the House. Poll windows continue to shrink, and this practice contributes to the lack of transparent government for the people’s elected representatives.” Opponents of the amendment did not offer any arguments during debate on the House floor. This is one of the amendments on which Beacon Hill Roll Call made repeated requests to reach several representatives in the House Democratic leadership for a comment on why they voted against it. Representatives not responding include Reps. Bill Galvin, Claire Cronin, Kate Hogan, Mike Moran, Peake and Joe Wagner. (A “Yes” vote is for giving two hours to vote. A “No” vote is against giving two hours). Rep. Joseph McGonagle No POST HOW REPRESENTATIVES VOTED ON BILLS IN COMMITTEE (H 3930) House 38-121 and 41-117, rejected two similar amendments that would require that committees make public how each legislator on the committee voted on whether or not to favorably report a bill to the House. This would replace a section of the proposed rules that would only post the names of legislators who voted against the bill and list the aggregate vote tally without names, of members voting in the affirmative or not voting. “The public has a right to know where their legislators stand on the issues being debated in committee, and it makes absolutely no sense to identify by name only those members who vote no at an executive session or on a poll,” said Rep. Brad Jones, sponsor of one of the amendments. “When we vote in the House chamber, our individual votes are displayed for all to see, and legislative committees should be held to the same standard by providing full disclosure of where each member stands on a given issue.” “I believe every resident of Massachusetts has the right to hold their elected state representative accountable,” said Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville), the sponsor of the other amendment. “Under current rules, there is no accountability on the votes we take in committee. This amendment ensures that every vote taken in committee is available to the public, including when bills are sent to study.” Rep. Joe Wagner (D-Chicopee) opposed the listing of which representatives vote yes or did not vote. “The names of votes of those voting in the negative being there for everyone to see is sufficient in terms of transparency,” said Wagner during the debate on the House floor. “I have always been concerned, and I’ve chaired committees for about 20 years, and I have been always concerned that when we take votes in committee, the votes that we take to advance legislation does not reflect necessarily, when an affirmative vote is taken, the support for the matter as it is before the committee.” Wagner continued, “So for example, there are points at which members will vote affirmatively to move a matter from a committee because they support the idea conceptually of a particular piece of policy or legislation. But with that support affirmatively, if that was a final form that the legislation may take. And so I think that where a vote in the negative is very clear, a vote in the affirmative is less clear. And there are interest groups and there are people frankly who may have agendas and would use a vote in the affirmative, if a member’s name were attached in that way, to try and discredit a member perhaps or potentially misconstrue a member’s position on a particular issue.” (Both roll calls are listed. On both roll calls, A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle No/No EXTEND THE EMERGENCY RULES FOR COVID-19 (H 3929) House 130-30, approved a measure that would extend until October 1, 2021, the emergency rules under which the House has been operating since the COVID-19 pandemic began more than a year ago. There was no debate on the proposal. House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy) told reporters his team wanted to keep temporary rules in place “unBHRC | SEE PAGE 25

22 Publizr Home