Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2023 By Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562 GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced writers Keith Regan and Matt Murphy who introduce each article in their own clever and inimitable way. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: https://lp.constantcontactpages. com/su/aPTLucK THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. The debate over the rules on how the House and Senate will operate during the upcoming 20232024 session will soon begin, as it does every year at the beginning of a legislative session. The rules are important and have an effect on how much power individual members have compared to House Speaker Ron Mariano (DQuincy), Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) and the rest of the Democratic leadership team. A LOOK BACK: Here are some of the new rules that House Republicans proposed for the 20212022 session, the comments of supporters and opponents of the new rules and how your local representatives voted. The proposals were all defeated mostly along party lines with the vast majority of Republicans voting for the changes and the vast number of Democrats voting against them. These four rules are likely to be offered by the GOP soon in the 20232024 session. 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 The rule was repealed in 2015. “The speaker holds the most powerful offi ce in the House of Representatives, but all 160 Representatives stand as equals when it comes to representing their constituents,” said GOP House Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “Setting term limits on the speaker’s offi ce 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.” “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 offi cials, which is not benefi cial for advancing legislation or for our districts.” (A “Yes” vote is for term limits for the speaker. A “No” vote is against term limits for the speaker.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Jeff Turco 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 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 affi rmative 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 [a] study [committee].” 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 suffi cient in terms of transparency,” said Wagner. “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 refl ect necessarily, when an affi rmative 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 affi rmatively to move a matter from a committee because they support the idea conceptually of a particular piece of policy or legislation … And so I think that where a vote in the negative is very clear, a vote in the affi rmative is less clear. And there are interest groups and there are people frankly who may have agendas and would use a vote in the affi rmative, if a member’s name were attached in that way, to try to 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. Jessica Giannino No/No Rep. Jeff Turco No/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 Rep. Brad Jones. “One of the more glaring examples … was a recent House Ways and Means poll that gave members just 16 minutes to review a 38-page supplemental budget and a separate election reprecincting proposal. That is simply not enough time to properly review and understand these bills.” Opponents of the amendment said it goes too far. They argued the current system works fi ne and that always allowing two hours can delay getting some important and urgent bills to the House fl oor. (A “Yes” vote is for giving two hours to vote. A “No” vote is against giving two hours.) Rep. Jessica Giannino N o Rep. Jeff Turco N o GIVE LEGISLATORS 72 HOURS TO READ CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS (H 68) House 35-123, rejected an amendment that would give legislators 72 hours to read a conference committee report before voting on it. Current rules allow the conference committee report to be considered the next day. “Conference committees often require weeks or even months of negotiations between the House and Senate to arrive at a compromise bill that can be presented to the membership for a vote,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones. “The current process allows very little time between the release of the conference committee report and the vote to accept the report for members to review and understand what they’re actually voting on. Providing a 72-hour window would give both the public and legislators a better understanding of what’s included in the conference committee report before a vote is taken.” “We are a deliberative body oftentimes debating issues for a half of the session,” said Rep. Daniel Hunt (D-Dorchester). “Over a year and a half we have come together and have great debate over the bills. Amendments are fi led. The Senate takes the same action. We might look at what the Senate did and further amend our bill. We then go to conference, where three members of each side sit in lengthy debate on our behalf and when the bill comes back to us it’s an up or down vote. I do appreciate the leader’s point where at the end of last session, because of necessity, because of the global pandemic, because of the extended session and the hour of the day, oftentimes reports were out in a 24-hour period.” (A “Yes” vote is for giving 72 hours. A “No” vote is against giving 72 hours.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Jeff Turco No ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL 6,403 BILLS FILED FOR CONSIDERATION IN 2023-2024 SESSION – Legislators fi led 6,403 pieces of legislation by the January 20 deadline. The 159 House members fi led 4,050 while the 40 senators fi led 2,353. Here are some of the 6,403: HEARING AIDS (HD 3777) – Would require all health care plans to provide hearing aid coverage BEACON | SEE Page 16
15 Publizr Home