Happy Saturday,
As summer turns slowly to fall, slight tinges of orange can now be seen on the tips of many trees. I’ve had many chances to admire this slow change in the last few weeks, driving around Massachusetts to talk about the topic on everyone’s lips: ballot questions.
As one of the major organizations behind Question 1, we’ve been privileged to speak at several of the ballot info sessions being hosted by groups around the state. It’s been exciting to get the chance to talk about why we need to end the Legislature and governor’s exemptions to public records law. And so far, nobody has stepped up to argue against it!
All this ballot question talk has also made me a bit wistful about our thwarted efforts to bringlegislative stipend reform to the ballot. As excited as I am about Question 1, I know that as long as state house leaders can control how much each member is paid, and dock pay for members who disagree with them, our reform movement is incomplete.
That’s why I’m excited to announce that in eight districts, there will be a Question 10 on the ballot: a nonbinding question about stipend reform. The text is as follows:
“Shall the representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation or rules to reduce the House Speaker’s and Senate President’s control over state legislators’ stipends (extra pay) and to provide stipends only to legislators who do significant extra work that is transparent and accountable to the public?”
Although these questions are nonbinding, a victory in these districts will send a strong message to the legislators who represent them and to state house leadership. Most importantly, it will keep stipend reform in the conversation and force legislators to keep answering questions about the unjust and hierarchical system of pay in our legislature.
Tell your friends and neighbors in these districts: vote YES on stipend reform!
A list of the state house districts with a stipend reform question, courtesy of our friends at Progressive Democrats of Mass
State House Scoop
The Legislature in their own words: Senator comments reveal where the real priorities lie on Beacon Hill
In last week’s Scoop, we discussed the results of the Lander-Brownsberger recount. In a race where more than 24,000 votes were cast, our endorsed candidate, Daniel Lander, fell just 35 votes short of unseating the Senate’s #3 member of leadership, William Brownsberger. On top of Persis Yu’s successful ouster of Senate Majority Whip Mike Rush, this show of force sends a real message to Senate leadership: the status quo isn’t working for many Bay Staters, and nobody’s seat is safe.
The event of the Lander-Brownsberger recount last week turned into a somewhat comical “who’s who” of the Senate. During the recount proceedings at Boston City Hall, eleven senators showedup to support Sen. Brownsberger, with some even serving as poll watchers.
Much of the Senators’ discussion, it seems, focused on their frustration with a figure that wasn’t even present: Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. Senators representing communities from Fall River to Springfield lined up to lambaste Mayor Wu for her decision to endorse challengers to two sitting senators, Senator Brownsberger and Senator Nick Collins.
For a review on the conflict between Mayor Wu and the Massachusetts Senate, I recommend reading our Scoop from January: “Boston tax skirmish highlights legislature’s refusal to address municipal concerns.” Long story short, against the vote of all Boston Senators except Collins and Brownsberger, the Senate refused to consider a Boston home rule petition backed by Mayor Wu and the City Council—twice. This left Boston homeowners facing a record high property tax jump with no relief. Whether you agree with the home rule petition or not, you can understand why Mayor Wu was frustrated.
Ultimately, Mayor Wu’s two endorsed candidates, Daniel Lander and Latoya Gayle, were unsuccessful in their bids; the one senator who was endorsed by Mayor Wu, Mike Rush, lost to Persis Yu. Needless to say, the senators at Boston City Hall last week were feeling a bit smug.
Here’s what Senator Robyn Kennedy of Worcester had to say: “if the mayor wants to pass legislation in the Senate, it’s not about running races against individual senators; it’s about building relationships with all 40 senators. My phone line is always available if she wants to start doing that.”
Alright. In 2024, flush with $34,000 in new donations from the real estate industry, Senator Collins used a procedural move unique to informal sessions to block a vote on the tax shift—by himself. Then, Senate leadership declared it dead. A senator is an elected official, meaning our most direct way of holding them accountable is at the ballot box. If we can’t single out Collins for blocking the tax shift—when he literally acted alone—who can we hold accountable?
(If you’ve been reading the Scoop for long enough, you know the answer to that: according to the dictates of Beacon Hill culture, nobody.)
Senator Michael Rodrigues’ quote was on a similar theme. As Senate Ways & Means chair, Rodrigues is considered the second most powerful member of the Senate. Of Mayor Wu, he said: “The Legislature is a people business. The more bridges you build, the more successful you’ll be. The more bridges you burn, the less successful you’ll be.”
First of all, did I fall asleep and wake up back in high school? Is Mayor Wu running for prom queen? I thought we were here to serve the people of Massachusetts?
Mayor Wu is the leader of Massachusetts’ largest city, which is home to 675,000 people, or roughly 1 in 10 of the Commonwealth’s residents. She was pushing for a policy which was passed 12-1 by the Boston City Council, who represent those constituents. Yet, Rodrigues openly states that her personal conduct shapes political outcomes more than the interests of those constituents. Even worse, he essentially threatens that the Legislature would actively block a political actor’s priorities if personally treated in a way they deem unsuitable. This is not just petty: it’s undemocratic. We knew that this is how things work on Beacon Hill. But it’s remarkable to hear such a powerful senator say it out loud, and to a reporter.
Second, we should name these statements for what they are: incumbent protection. Both of these messages function as a warning: if you take action through elections, you’ll “burn bridges.” Your only path to success is by kissing up to us, the 40 existing Senators. Do not try to go around us.
In our state with the least competitive elections in the country, it is so clear that legislators are unacquainted with conflict or criticism from a member of their own party. Even when they’ve taken an action that someone disagreed with, they interpret accountability as a personal affront. For some reason, this is especially true when that accountability comes in the form of something that should be unremarkable to an elected official: a competitive election.
We can hope that this thinly veiled intimidation will not deter Mayor Wu, who is a formidable political actor in her own right. But we can imagine the message this sends to other mayors, local officials, and community leaders. They might think twice about supporting a challenger to a sitting legislator or encouraging someone to run against them, even if that legislator has taken an action they disagree with.
Unfortunately, these comments are just the most recent example of a pervasive political culture that already chills competition and public conflict around our Legislature. This culture encourages actors to channel their political advocacy through informal relationships with a few powerful gatekeepers, rather than building grassroots strength or engaging in democratic elections. This is what allows industry lobbying to consistently block legislation that the public overwhelmingly supports. It’s a culture that stalls progress and protects the political interests of the few at the cost of the many.
This is why we need to keep pushing for reforms to that political culture, including stipend reform, term limits for speaker and senate president, and campaign finance reform. It’s also why we need to keep supporting candidates like Persis Yu and Daniel Lander who challenge the status quo of power in our state. At Act on Mass, we are proud to do both of those things. Thank you for standing with us.
| Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog. |
What else we’re reading this week
Interesting writing and reporting from around the Bay State this week!
- Political Notebook: Teachers vs. Smith & Wesson in Commonwealth Beacon
- Massachusetts hospitals are teaching Trump how easily trans care can be erasedin Advocate Magazine
- The Fed raised interest rates – what does that mean for MA? by Chris Oates on Substack
Take Action
Table with Act on Mass at Nashoba Valley Pride – September 27th, 1-4 p.m.
Act on Mass is excited to be hosting a table at Nashoba Pride next Sunday, September 27th on Bolton Common! Join us to talk about the importance of organizing at the state level and passing legislation like the Healthy Youth Act. If you’re interested in joining us at the table, please email scotia@actonmass.org. Hope to see you there!
Thanks for reading and for supporting Act on Mass! Have a great weekend.
Scotia
Scotia Hille (she/her)
Executive Director, Act on Mass