By Alan Burke
Staff writer
—
State Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, is complaining that "parliamentary shenanigans" are allowing his fellow legislators to avoid votes on key issues.
"There's a frustration in the House among many Republicans and Democrats over how the leadership is putting issues 'into study' rather than having up or down votes," he said yesterday.
The matter came to a head for Hill on Wednesday when Rep. Jeff Perry, R-Sandwich, offered a budget amendment that would have required applicants for state services, like welfare and public housing, to prove legal residency. Instead of an up or down vote, the Legislature decided, with 82 in favor and 75 opposed, to send the measure to a committee for study.
Hill sees a pattern on Beacon Hill with the leadership repeatedly ducking votes on issues that might antagonize some constituents by instead voting for "studies" that effectively kill the measure.
"We've had issues, which I would argue are very big issues." Hill ticked off Perry's amendment, an effort to roll back the alcohol tax and another to reduce the sales tax. All three were sent to study.
The Perry amendment has now gone to a study committee for the second year in a row, Hill said. "We never got a vote." He indicated that this allows representatives to tell voters that they've never voted against it while still eliminating the proposal through a kind of legislative sleight of hand.
In response, Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem, singled out Perry's amendment, noting, "He did not have answers to all the questions. ... How much will it cost?" Not knowing the price for checking the identities of hundreds of thousands of applicants, Keenan said, he had no choice but to vote to send the measure to study.
"You don't have enough information to make a decision," he said.
Keenan sees no overriding problem with the practice of sending such proposals to study. At times, he noted, issues require hearings and shouldn't be tacked onto the budget as amendments anyway. "They should be vetted in the regular committee process."
On the other hand, Keenan conceded that telling the public an amendment has gone to "study" may be misleading because some measures will never be studied by anyone.
Hill replied, "We were told (last year) by the leadership of the House that they would do a study and do a cost analysis (on Perry's amendment). Now we know that was a complete fabrication." Filing a bill, he said, can also lead to having the issue sent to study.
Rep. Ted Speliotis, D-Danvers, believes that his colleagues should take an "up or down vote." Nevertheless, he concedes that he voted to send Perry's amendment, the sales tax and the alcohol tax to study.
"I don't have control over what's on the floor of the House," Speliotis said. "I voted for study because that was the motion."
Nevertheless, Speliotis expects that his constituents understand that he opposes the measure. "I'm going to give you my opinion on a bill or a particular issue."
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis, D-Peabody, agrees with both Speliotis and Keenan that some measures require study. Further, she said, "If I had a bill that was really important, I'd rather have it put in study than kill it."
Even so, Spiliotis voted against studying Perry's immigrant amendment, preferring the opportunity to vote in favor. "If you're here illegally, you shouldn't get state services," she said.
She also voted against studying an end to the alcohol tax, noting that she never voted for it in the first place. In another bit of legislative maneuvering, Spiliotis lamented, the original increase was simply attached to the budget. "We never even had a public hearing."
If representatives believe something, she said, "Then why don't they say it? ... That's what we're elected for."
Both Hill and Speliotis agree that the use of study committees is not a new tactic, but it's being used more than in the past. Hill said he believes the increase goes back to former House Speaker Sal DiMasi. Speliotis goes him one better, saying, "I believe Tom Finneran used every rule he had."
