Dear Hecate:
I called my Rep like you told me to and asked her to communicate directly with the Speaker and the Chair of Ways and Means to express her personal committment on our amendment to earmark some substance abuse dollars to our community programs. She told me that she, along with other Reps -- maybe as many as 40 or so -- were meeting with the Speaker and Ways and Means tomorrow (Thursday) about the local aid, and until she got a commitment on adding substantial dollars to local aid she didn't want to bring up any other issues. I told her I was really disappointed. Any ideas for how I can get her to refocus her priorities.
Molly
Hecate says :
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than 40 Reps in that meeting because the amount and distribution of Local Aid affects each and every city, town and regional school district in Massachusetts AND the final number will be announced at every town meeting, every city council and in all the local media markets. There is no other more important measure of a Reps performance that how he or she "delivers" for the district. Everything else they work for, earmarking for your local program, jumpstarting a new early education initiative, comes in second.
So wait a few days -- maybe over the weekend to ask your Rep again.
Hecate suspects that House Leadership will announce they have found a way to increase the dollars and fiddle with the formulas in ways that will make most Members happy enough to immediatly instruct their staffs to do a press release announcing that she/he had succeeded in using her/his considerable clout to protect the district from disasterous cut in local aid.
And then they'll have some time and political capital left to attend to other local matters-- like yours.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Can't Complain if You Don't Participate
Hecate:
Thanks very much for the relatively jargon -free Insider Budget Briefing Alert. I’m using it to explain to my 7th graders how the guys up at the State House in Boston decide things. Frankly, I’m horrified that the real decisions are made in literally a back room, and the public is not able to even watch and listen. When did this all start? When I interned at the State Senate 12 years ago, it took three weeks sometimes to get the budget through the House, while the Senate took a full week of debate – line item by line item.
Disgusted in Dorchester
Hecate says:
About 5 years ago the House developed these rules hoping to create a more inclusive and transparent process to the Members themselves. The Senate used to call in "bundling" in your day. (Remember the two piles named ought to pass or ought not to pass on the last night of the Senate Debate?)
Those three week debates in the House, Monday through Friday from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm, finishing up with an all night session on the last Friday before a long weekend, were tests of endurance and stamina and little more.
The leadership still convened caucuses (caucii?) in the Speaker's office, or the Majority Leader's office with a few selected Members trying to achieve some kind of consensus about how to handle major controversial issues like local aid and taxes, while all the rank and file Members debated proposed amendments to individual line items on the Floor. The Republicans were always ready to debate endlessly the smallest increase in a line item and the smallest cut.
These new rules do open the caucuses up to all the members and do provide some transparency on leadership decisions, and do force individual Members to participate in the caucus system or stop complaining about closed door leadership decisions.
Thanks very much for the relatively jargon -free Insider Budget Briefing Alert. I’m using it to explain to my 7th graders how the guys up at the State House in Boston decide things. Frankly, I’m horrified that the real decisions are made in literally a back room, and the public is not able to even watch and listen. When did this all start? When I interned at the State Senate 12 years ago, it took three weeks sometimes to get the budget through the House, while the Senate took a full week of debate – line item by line item.
Disgusted in Dorchester
Hecate says:
About 5 years ago the House developed these rules hoping to create a more inclusive and transparent process to the Members themselves. The Senate used to call in "bundling" in your day. (Remember the two piles named ought to pass or ought not to pass on the last night of the Senate Debate?)
Those three week debates in the House, Monday through Friday from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm, finishing up with an all night session on the last Friday before a long weekend, were tests of endurance and stamina and little more.
The leadership still convened caucuses (caucii?) in the Speaker's office, or the Majority Leader's office with a few selected Members trying to achieve some kind of consensus about how to handle major controversial issues like local aid and taxes, while all the rank and file Members debated proposed amendments to individual line items on the Floor. The Republicans were always ready to debate endlessly the smallest increase in a line item and the smallest cut.
These new rules do open the caucuses up to all the members and do provide some transparency on leadership decisions, and do force individual Members to participate in the caucus system or stop complaining about closed door leadership decisions.
Friday, April 14, 2006
How to Make the Budget Better
Dear Hecate :
We just got our budget amendment submitted to the House Ways and Means budget in Massachusetts. And, although we called around to all 40 of the cosigners of our original bill, only 32 signed on. Some of the Chairs told us that they never sign on as co-sponsors, and others just never responded. How do we get all of our sponsors to sign on to the amendment. I was told by the clerks office that they may be able to call in during vacation week to get their names on as supporters. Does it make sense for us to try? Will it make a difference?
Frustrated in Framingham
Hecate says.
While individual legislators may still call into the House clerk’s office to get their name added to any amendment it is important for advocates to understand that their energies should be primarily directed at getting key opinion leaders to deliver a personal note of support to the Speaker or the Chair of W&M on their amendment. (Especially chairs who said they could not/would not add their names to any amendments other than those that directly affected their district and or a “technical amendment” that addressed a substantive committee issue.)
Starting today, smart and savvy advocates are focusing on finding ways to get their key, most influential inside and outside advocates to deliver personal one-on-one messages to the Speaker and the Chair of Ways and Means that says……I/we really care about this specific amendment and this language/level of appropriation will satisfy me/us”.
Starting on Thursday the 13th staff from House Ways and Means began sorting out all amendments into subsets that generally fall within the departments and agencies of the budget itself , for instance the judiciary, the executive and all the individual departments, agencies, commissions within each department
Then the staff will sort out all the amendments by line item producing a document for House Leadership and the Chair of HW&M Committee that lists, by line item, all the amendments to every department and agency. The list of sponsors and cosponsors for each amendment are available by amendment for sure, and in the past, staff have complied a cross list of legislators listing all the amendments they sponsored and cosponsored.
At some point during the “vacation” week (for everybody but H W&M Staff) there will be a meeting of key House Leaders including the Chair and some members of W&M, and they will come to some conclusions about which amendments should be accepted based on the number and substance of the amendments, the number of key influential members of the House supporting the amendments and the number of well organized outside advocates who support the amendments. Staff will be then be directed to begin to draft the so-called consolidated amendments for each department, agency and line item in the budget.
When the debate begins (scheduled for April 24) the Chair of Ways and Means will move the bill into third reading, and make a defense of his budget and the Republicans will no doubt go on some about the lack of a tax cut. They may even bring up an individual amendment on revenues, or rules for the debate just to let the Republicans make their points before being voted down.
At some point --- and nobody now knows when – i.e. Monday evening, Tuesday evening, the Speaker or whoever is in the chair will begin a series of announcements “Members interested in the consolidated amendment for the (Department of Mental Health) (Department of Public Health) (Department for Environmental Affairs) (Department of Highways) etc etc will meet in the adjoining room to discuss a consolidated amendment. These “discussions” will NOT follow the order of the line items in the budget.
In the adjoining room “interested” members will be given a “draft” consolidated amendment and the Chair or Vice Chair, or a selected Committee Chair will facilitate a discussion and members will argue and negotiate forcefully if their amendment is not included, or is poorly worded. Some times they run out to the advocates standing in the lobby to get suggestions for language changes, sometimes they run into the Speakers office to complain and ask him to intercede.
While there is not an official vote inside the caucus there is always a decision announced by the presiding chair of the caucus about how the “draft” consolidated amendment has been changed, and every one in the caucus gets a printed copy. The presiding chair of the caucus goes into the House Chamber to describe the consolidated amendment and ask for a vote of the body. Members who got their amendment will stand up and say it’s a great compromise. Members who did not get their amendment will express their disappointment. (Under the rules any member can pull their amendment and offer it independently, in the full knowledge that the amendment will be rejected on a voice vote.)
Everything is strategy and timing here for the House Leadership – because they do want to finish in a timely manner, and cobble together a general consensus at the same time. The goal is to give key opinion leaders in the House something to brag about, feel good about and something that will satisfy key outside advocates.
So-- at last-- the answer to your question is --- start organizing inside and outside key opinion makers in the House to do personal notes to the Speaker and Chair of Ways and Means so that your individual amendment can be included in the draft consolidated amendment.
We just got our budget amendment submitted to the House Ways and Means budget in Massachusetts. And, although we called around to all 40 of the cosigners of our original bill, only 32 signed on. Some of the Chairs told us that they never sign on as co-sponsors, and others just never responded. How do we get all of our sponsors to sign on to the amendment. I was told by the clerks office that they may be able to call in during vacation week to get their names on as supporters. Does it make sense for us to try? Will it make a difference?
Frustrated in Framingham
Hecate says.
While individual legislators may still call into the House clerk’s office to get their name added to any amendment it is important for advocates to understand that their energies should be primarily directed at getting key opinion leaders to deliver a personal note of support to the Speaker or the Chair of W&M on their amendment. (Especially chairs who said they could not/would not add their names to any amendments other than those that directly affected their district and or a “technical amendment” that addressed a substantive committee issue.)
Starting today, smart and savvy advocates are focusing on finding ways to get their key, most influential inside and outside advocates to deliver personal one-on-one messages to the Speaker and the Chair of Ways and Means that says……I/we really care about this specific amendment and this language/level of appropriation will satisfy me/us”.
Starting on Thursday the 13th staff from House Ways and Means began sorting out all amendments into subsets that generally fall within the departments and agencies of the budget itself , for instance the judiciary, the executive and all the individual departments, agencies, commissions within each department
Then the staff will sort out all the amendments by line item producing a document for House Leadership and the Chair of HW&M Committee that lists, by line item, all the amendments to every department and agency. The list of sponsors and cosponsors for each amendment are available by amendment for sure, and in the past, staff have complied a cross list of legislators listing all the amendments they sponsored and cosponsored.
At some point during the “vacation” week (for everybody but H W&M Staff) there will be a meeting of key House Leaders including the Chair and some members of W&M, and they will come to some conclusions about which amendments should be accepted based on the number and substance of the amendments, the number of key influential members of the House supporting the amendments and the number of well organized outside advocates who support the amendments. Staff will be then be directed to begin to draft the so-called consolidated amendments for each department, agency and line item in the budget.
When the debate begins (scheduled for April 24) the Chair of Ways and Means will move the bill into third reading, and make a defense of his budget and the Republicans will no doubt go on some about the lack of a tax cut. They may even bring up an individual amendment on revenues, or rules for the debate just to let the Republicans make their points before being voted down.
At some point --- and nobody now knows when – i.e. Monday evening, Tuesday evening, the Speaker or whoever is in the chair will begin a series of announcements “Members interested in the consolidated amendment for the (Department of Mental Health) (Department of Public Health) (Department for Environmental Affairs) (Department of Highways) etc etc will meet in the adjoining room to discuss a consolidated amendment. These “discussions” will NOT follow the order of the line items in the budget.
In the adjoining room “interested” members will be given a “draft” consolidated amendment and the Chair or Vice Chair, or a selected Committee Chair will facilitate a discussion and members will argue and negotiate forcefully if their amendment is not included, or is poorly worded. Some times they run out to the advocates standing in the lobby to get suggestions for language changes, sometimes they run into the Speakers office to complain and ask him to intercede.
While there is not an official vote inside the caucus there is always a decision announced by the presiding chair of the caucus about how the “draft” consolidated amendment has been changed, and every one in the caucus gets a printed copy. The presiding chair of the caucus goes into the House Chamber to describe the consolidated amendment and ask for a vote of the body. Members who got their amendment will stand up and say it’s a great compromise. Members who did not get their amendment will express their disappointment. (Under the rules any member can pull their amendment and offer it independently, in the full knowledge that the amendment will be rejected on a voice vote.)
Everything is strategy and timing here for the House Leadership – because they do want to finish in a timely manner, and cobble together a general consensus at the same time. The goal is to give key opinion leaders in the House something to brag about, feel good about and something that will satisfy key outside advocates.
So-- at last-- the answer to your question is --- start organizing inside and outside key opinion makers in the House to do personal notes to the Speaker and Chair of Ways and Means so that your individual amendment can be included in the draft consolidated amendment.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Keeping the List and Checking it Twice............
Hecate:
The Legislature has been "conferencing" a very complex and complicated health "reform" legislation for almost three months now. While my organization has been focused on how we can get fairly reimbursed for our services, we have been working in coalition for almost two years with a number of other providers serving other kinds of clients, consumer advocacy groups who advocate for some of our clients, other advocacy groups who advocate for a particular health financing plan, faith based groups who are advocating for universal care on high moral grounds. I have been told that when the conference committee report comes out, we will "meet, talk and vote" before the coalition publicly announces any decision to support or not support the final package. What do we do if our reimbursement piece is left out and the rest of the coalition is happy and votes to support the bill?
Hecate says:
Go to the meeting, go through the bill with a fine toothed comb and be prepared to Speak up!! You won't be alone in not being satisfied. Your Coalition will be making a plan to push for some "technical" corrections and improvements in the months that lie ahead. Staying together to monitor the "implementation phase" is the next task for the entire Coalition and your job is to make sure that they don't forget you!!!!!
Sunday, March 12, 2006
It ain't over till it's over. Lots of work to do still.
Hecate
I'm part of a group that's been pushing hard for significant reform in health care. Looks like we won't get it this year. I am so tired of being satisfield about winning incremental change. I am so tired of being told to take a half a loaf and being told I ought to satisfied. I am so tired of watching elected officials I voted for, even worked for, who tried to champion our cause telling me that we were lucky to get what we got. I'm just feeling its a hopeless job being an advocate.
Ready to give up in Peabody Mass
Hecate says....
Ever heard of Dorothy Day? She said "No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless. There's too much work to do."
Besides what makes you think it's hopeless? It ain't over till it's over. And it ain't over yet. Lots of work for you to do still.
I'm part of a group that's been pushing hard for significant reform in health care. Looks like we won't get it this year. I am so tired of being satisfield about winning incremental change. I am so tired of being told to take a half a loaf and being told I ought to satisfied. I am so tired of watching elected officials I voted for, even worked for, who tried to champion our cause telling me that we were lucky to get what we got. I'm just feeling its a hopeless job being an advocate.
Ready to give up in Peabody Mass
Hecate says....
Ever heard of Dorothy Day? She said "No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless. There's too much work to do."
Besides what makes you think it's hopeless? It ain't over till it's over. And it ain't over yet. Lots of work for you to do still.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Jack Abramoff in Massachusetts??
Dear Hecate,
Check this out from the State House News Service......FINNERAN'S COMING-OUT PARTY AT PARKER HOUSE: State lobbying rules restricted former House Speaker Thomas Finneran's lobbying of his former colleagues for one year after his departure from the Legislature. In his now year-old role as president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Finneran has served as a spokesman for the industry, but hasn't been able to wield the skills and legacy he developed during a 26-year State House career in a full-fledged effort to influence state officials. That changes Wednesday, when Finneran throws his coming-out bash at the Omni Parker House, an event entitled "A Prescription for Growth and Maintaining Our Edge," with big names from the industry lining the marquee. Scheduled speakers include Cavan M. Redmond, executive vice president of BioPharma Business Unit at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals; Jack Wilson, president of the University of Massachusetts; Merrill Matthews Jr., Ph.D., director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance; Frank Douglas, Ph.D. M.D., executive director of the MIT Center for Biomedical Innovation; Kollol Pal, principal at PureTech Ventures LLC; Abi Barrow, head of tech transfer at UMass; and Michael Astrue, interim president and CEO of EPIX Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge. Finneran, whose trial for federal perjury charges is in a holding pattern, will host the event and emcee. The former Democratic leader from Mattapan is expected to address biotech interests in the economic stimulus package under consideration in a legislative conference committee. (Wednesday, 11:30 am - 2:30 pm, Omni Parker House Hotel, 60 School Street, Boston)
Is Tom Finneran our Jack Abramoff?
Hecate says
No. There is no equivilant to Jack in Massachusetts, in part because of your strict campaign reform laws, in part because you don't have any big profit centers stupid enough to think they need to pay huge amount of money to crush potential competition. (That's what the casino operators thought they were paying Abramoff to do.)
Being a very smart man, Tom Finneran is going to be very careful to carry out any lobbying activities on behalf of his association/client legally. By holding a briefing session at the Parker House, no doubt to be followed by perfectly legal un- bundled contributions to attending elected officials, he is only following the recent 10 year trend that he started himself in the middle 90s.
It used to be that every elected official in Massachusetts held a couple of fundraisers a year at at Anthoney's Pier 4 or Jimmy's Harborside and every lobbyists was expected to bring clients (and their checks) to key elected officals fundraiser to stand in long lines for a 30 second handshake and chance to nibble on pretty dreadful finger food. This meant lobbyists had to get over to the waterfront a couple of times a week and one lobbyist was famous for carving his initals into the base of the standard giant cheese ball at Anthony's to see how many days and weeks it stayed. Smart lobbyists counseled their clients to stick to the fresh vegtables and shrimp, hoping they could not be so readily recycled.
Tom Finneran preferred his contributors -- lobbying firms, trade associations and individual lobbyists -- to organize and host small fundraisers -- usually breakfasts-- at private offices. This allowed for longer and more specific discussions of pending issues of interest to a smaller group of clients all interested in the same issues. Again all perfectly legal.
That's the trend today. Individual lobbyists, corportations, business groups, trade associations, law firms, non-profit institutions and special interest groups routinely organize small fundraisers for individual elected officals in private venues where their clients are able to have longer conversations about their issue and much better food. For the same amount of money.
The Massachusetts Money and Politics Project documented the changing trends in fundraising and spending through 2002 and some of those reports are available by emailing George Pillsbury at mailto:gpillsbury@nonprofitvote.org
Check this out from the State House News Service......FINNERAN'S COMING-OUT PARTY AT PARKER HOUSE: State lobbying rules restricted former House Speaker Thomas Finneran's lobbying of his former colleagues for one year after his departure from the Legislature. In his now year-old role as president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Finneran has served as a spokesman for the industry, but hasn't been able to wield the skills and legacy he developed during a 26-year State House career in a full-fledged effort to influence state officials. That changes Wednesday, when Finneran throws his coming-out bash at the Omni Parker House, an event entitled "A Prescription for Growth and Maintaining Our Edge," with big names from the industry lining the marquee. Scheduled speakers include Cavan M. Redmond, executive vice president of BioPharma Business Unit at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals; Jack Wilson, president of the University of Massachusetts; Merrill Matthews Jr., Ph.D., director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance; Frank Douglas, Ph.D. M.D., executive director of the MIT Center for Biomedical Innovation; Kollol Pal, principal at PureTech Ventures LLC; Abi Barrow, head of tech transfer at UMass; and Michael Astrue, interim president and CEO of EPIX Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge. Finneran, whose trial for federal perjury charges is in a holding pattern, will host the event and emcee. The former Democratic leader from Mattapan is expected to address biotech interests in the economic stimulus package under consideration in a legislative conference committee. (Wednesday, 11:30 am - 2:30 pm, Omni Parker House Hotel, 60 School Street, Boston)
Is Tom Finneran our Jack Abramoff?
Hecate says
No. There is no equivilant to Jack in Massachusetts, in part because of your strict campaign reform laws, in part because you don't have any big profit centers stupid enough to think they need to pay huge amount of money to crush potential competition. (That's what the casino operators thought they were paying Abramoff to do.)
Being a very smart man, Tom Finneran is going to be very careful to carry out any lobbying activities on behalf of his association/client legally. By holding a briefing session at the Parker House, no doubt to be followed by perfectly legal un- bundled contributions to attending elected officials, he is only following the recent 10 year trend that he started himself in the middle 90s.
It used to be that every elected official in Massachusetts held a couple of fundraisers a year at at Anthoney's Pier 4 or Jimmy's Harborside and every lobbyists was expected to bring clients (and their checks) to key elected officals fundraiser to stand in long lines for a 30 second handshake and chance to nibble on pretty dreadful finger food. This meant lobbyists had to get over to the waterfront a couple of times a week and one lobbyist was famous for carving his initals into the base of the standard giant cheese ball at Anthony's to see how many days and weeks it stayed. Smart lobbyists counseled their clients to stick to the fresh vegtables and shrimp, hoping they could not be so readily recycled.
Tom Finneran preferred his contributors -- lobbying firms, trade associations and individual lobbyists -- to organize and host small fundraisers -- usually breakfasts-- at private offices. This allowed for longer and more specific discussions of pending issues of interest to a smaller group of clients all interested in the same issues. Again all perfectly legal.
That's the trend today. Individual lobbyists, corportations, business groups, trade associations, law firms, non-profit institutions and special interest groups routinely organize small fundraisers for individual elected officals in private venues where their clients are able to have longer conversations about their issue and much better food. For the same amount of money.
The Massachusetts Money and Politics Project documented the changing trends in fundraising and spending through 2002 and some of those reports are available by emailing George Pillsbury at mailto:gpillsbury@nonprofitvote.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
