NEWS & MEDIALatest updates from Act on Mass and the fight for transparency in the State House

The proposal had drawn opposition from good government groups and advocates, who argued term limits help usher in new ideas and serve as a check against potential corruption. “This is definitely a bad day for democracy on Beacon Hill,” said Erin Leahy, executive director of the group Act on Mass, which has pressed for more transparency in the Legislature. “To see the last of the Big Three that had term limits lose that safeguard portends a regression in . . . democratic values on Beacon Hill that I think everyone should be concerned about.”

A plan by the state Senate to change their self imposed rules and allow the body’s president to serve unlimited terms is being met with concern by a government transparency group. “To see the Senate backslide on this critical issue of democracy and power-sharing is deeply troubling. The senate president has nearly unfettered control over the passage of legislation in that chamber. Allowing someone to hold this position indefinitely enables them to further concentrate that power and pass the torch to a hand-picked successor,” Erin Leahy, executive director of anti-corruption group Act on Mass, told the Herald.

“When legislators vote in secret in committees, they are incentivized to vote with leadership and can avoid the scrutiny of their constituents,” said Brenna Ransden, organizing director for Act on Mass, a coalition of progressive groups and unions that has been pushing for more legislative transparency. “How are we supposed to hold our elected officials accountable to our beliefs and values if we can’t see how they’re voting?” she said.

Erin Leahy, executive director of the group Act on Mass, which has pressed for more transparency in the Legislature, said it was troubling that the Senate was considering “sinking down to the House’s level” on term limits. “Having one person in that role for an extended period of time — and allowing them to amass more and more power and keeping potential new perspectives at bay — is bad for all of us,” Leahy said.

When your state representative votes, you would expect that vote to be recorded, right? Not in Massachusetts. Last week while the House was deciding on its rules for the session that began last month, representatives rejected two amendments to make all committee votes public information. To make matters worse, no votes were recorded on the decision. That means that Attleboro area voters have no idea how the official elected to represent them on Beacon Hill stands on the issue. They may say they are for transparency in government, but do they back up their words?

Act on Mass said publishing how committee members vote on bills is “standard practice in a majority of other states as well as in the Massachusetts State Senate.” The group said an “opaque committee process” in the House, which controls joint committees by virtue of having more reps on those panels than senators, is “key to the concentration of power on Beacon Hill.” The group further claims that the current setup enables House Democrats to “kill progressive legislation with little explanation as to why.”

“As a good governance watchdog, our goal at Act on Mass is to shine a light on the canyon between what voters want and believe and what their state house is doing. The legislature’s refusal to publish committee votes is a perfect example of this disconnect that is, frankly, anti-democratic.”

...House leaders do not want committees and their members to be too influential in shaping legislation. In the time between when bills leave committee and when they hit the floor, they go behind closed doors where they are reviewed, rewritten, or deep-sixed by only a handful of legislative leaders. Since all of this occurs largely outside public view, with no hearings and no public record, it’s impossible to know who else weighs in. This is favorable terrain for savvy insiders, including lobbyists, who are adept at using connections and campaign contributions to get their voices heard.

Erin Leahy, executive director of the progressive group Act on Mass, said she believes House Democrats remain opposed to publicizing a full member-by-member breakdown of committee votes “because they don’t want committees to play an actual, active role in the lawmaking process.” “Having a strong show of support for a bill in committee via a positive committee vote can make it hard for leadership to have to explain later why they decided to change a bill or shelve it or not take it on at all,” Leahy said. “And if legislative leaders want a bill to die, they can avoid and diffuse accountability if they are able to hide who voted which way or even how many people voted at all.”

Erin Leahy, executive director of the group Act on Mass., said it is “disappointing” to see the state Legislature taking fewer votes on the record. “When the Legislature conducts the public’s business behind closed doors, our democracy suffers,” she said. “How are everyday people supposed to engage with the lawmaking process when so few votes are recorded for them to see? How can constituents hold their elected officials accountable when they can’t see how they’re voting on issues that affect their lives?”