Massachusetts Viewpoint; Legislative Process

Good evening and welcome again to Massachusetts viewpoint. Tonight we are once again concerned with the great General Court in Massachusetts our state legislature and some of the problems affecting the legislation that most assuredly affects you and me. A lot of people have asked questions about how legislation goes through the General Court itself. And this is an area where the college professor can talk about 22 or 23 nicely ordered steps where the legislative process. But there probably is a lot lying behind, how a bill gets introduced, how it is taken to committees, when committee hearings are held, what happens to a bill in committees, when it gets reported out to the floors and what kinds of things go into voting on legislation before it is submitted to the governor for his signature and then for the application of the legislation in terms of law. A former representative in the General Court in the House of Representatives is Sumner Kaplan of Brookline, an attorney

has written recently some aspects of the legislative process that are not readily apparent to the public. We're going to ask former representative Kaplan to discuss his ideas about legislation and then we are going to have with us in discussing this some of the outstanding leaders of the General Court of both houses in the General Court of Massachusetts. Before we turn therefore to Sumner Kaplan let me introduce the other members of the panel on the Massachusetts Viewpoints this evening. We have Senator Maurice Donohue the president of the Senate who is of course a Democrat from Holyoke Massachusetts. Representative Robert H Quinn who is the majority whip in the House of Representatives in the General Court. And he is from Dorchester Massachusetts rather Dorchester in Boston Massachusetts. We also have with us Representative William Owens of Cambridge and representing the press this evening Mr. James Jones[?] a columnist for The Boston Traveler.

While in discussing the legislative process, Mr. Kaplan I wonder whether you might start off and tell us some of your views as recently expressed in an article dealing with the legislative process in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Kaplan. Yes when I first came to the legislature in 1955 Christian Herter was governor and he addressed the incoming legislature. And one of the things he told us at that time was that when he had been a member of Congress the most effective member of Congress, of Congress, was by you know Vito Marcantonio of New York who was not a very popular person in the Congress. But he said Marcantonio was the most effective member because Marcantonio knew the rules of the Congress and he then advised all of us as incoming legislators to study the rules. I studied the rules and had studied them during my eight years in the legislature and found them to be a labyrinth of confusion in so far, in the operation of them, it appears to me

that even today under the operation of the rules while much good legislation gets passed, that much good legislation gets passed, indeed due to the manipulation of the of the rules that there ought to be some better method and some clearer method so that the public can follow a bill step by step from its inception to its to its completion. Take for example when a bill was originally filed some people have asked that duplicate copies of the bills be made so that the public between the time the bell is filed and the time it is printed and presented to a committee will have an idea of what is in the bill. This simple procedure is not being followed today and I think it would be helpful if it were. The matter of assignments of bills and assignment of bills to committees, is a matter which is in the hands technically of the speaker and president of the Senate, actually it's done by the clerk. But many times this can be done by the clerk on the instructions of the president of the Senate or the speaker of the House of Representatives.

This gives a good deal of control, conferences between the chairman of committees who are appointed by the respective presidents and speakers and the legislative leaders can control when bills come in and out of a come out of a committee and onto the onto the floor. The public has no real way of knowing in advance except for maybe one day and sometimes not only that as to when it's coming. Not only does the public not have the way of knowing it but the legislators have no way of knowing it. And indeed as I said in my article I think only the most experienced of legislative leaders, only the most experienced of lobbyists can really follow legislation and they too often end up confused. Now I'm not saying that this is all work to the bad or for evil. In fact I can well remember the very first bill we had on fair housing in the Massachusetts state legislature this bill was passed by quick action on the part of the speaker who used the rules to advantage when one opposing member was out of the of the

member who was opposed to this bill, vehemently opposed to it, what was out of the house at the time and was able to bang the bill through in the language of the legislature, bang the bill through before the member who was out of the chamber knew what was happening. Now I think the results were excellent there. I think many of our results are excellent I think sometimes we might not have had autonomy for the University of Massachusetts and other matters concerning education if they hadn't been fast action on the parts of speakers and presidents of the Senate. But the fact of the matter is this does not seem to me to be the proper way for things to be done in a democracy. I think some way has to be devised to streamline the rules in some way has to be devised so that the city on a hill and the legislature that's on the city on the hill in the city operates in much more of a fishbowl than they than they do operate now so that everybody knows what's going on. The rules are old many of them go back to before in fact most of them go back to before the nineteen hundred.

My check of the rules I found that out, and it appears to me that it's time to revise them and study them in the light of modern day communications in the light of the more sophistication on the part of the public and in the light of an electric roll call which which is coming in. Well thank you very much Mr. Kaplan, you certainly have thrown out a number of challenges to those who have some very basic and large responsibilities for the legislative process and the General Court of Massachusetts. Senator Dohahue, you of course are president of the state Senate. Now you have have, as I have indicated and everybody knows very large responsibilities in the whole area of the legislative process. What do you think of Mr Kaplan's views about the problems of legislation the fact that the public is not always aware of what is going on let alone the members of the General Court themselves. Well first of all I think that the members of the General Court do know what's going on. I would agree with Sumner that the rules are

perhaps complicated and involved but I think that we have to do this for the protection of the people. I think that there are many things that could be streamlined for example in the last three or four sessions of the General Court we have passed a bill in the Senate to prohibit bills that have been killed in the first session from being reintroduced in the second session and there's a great deal of controversy over this but as far as the legislative rules are concerned there are I think many of them are quite simple. First of all, next Wednesday is the deadline for filing bills for the next session of the General Court so that by and large most of the propositions that are going to be facing us will be filed by next Wednesday at 5 o'clock. These bills are assigned as a Sumner pointed out by the president of the Senate and the speaker of the house till the 31 committees that we have operating on Beacon Hill and they will start their public hearings probably around the 10th of January. All of

these bills must be heard by the last Wednesday in March and reported out of the committee by 5 o'clock on that night. Now there are a few committees that are exceptions to this Crule, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on municipal finance, and the Committee and counties are not subjected to this time limit because most of their bills are complicated they involve the financial problems you confront in a Commonwealth and as a result there is no time limit on those committees. I think that the way the committees work out supposedly, and I think that in most instances this happens there is a you know the people that are directly concerned are notified about a week in advance of when the public hearings are going to be held. Now if the thing worked perfectly and all of the bills were filed by next Wednesday and all of them were in print by the time the legislature went into session on the first Wednesday in January. The committee chairman from the House and the Senate should sit down in an ideal situation and assign all of the bills before their

committee on that date so that when the first bulletin comes out the date of every public hearing for the next three months is included, now in many instances this doesn't work out in that ideal way because of some bills are filed late and as a result don't get to the committee by the first week in January and others are controversial or people who have put them in ask the committees to hold the public hearings up a while because they have redrafts that they think would improve the vehicle that they think is going to be something that's in the best interest of all of the people of Massachusetts. I agree with Sumner that you have to study these rules and I think that a great deal of time has to be put to them and I know that particularly for new members it's a very complicated set up and we try to help in that way by having the clerk of the House of Representatives conduct a course in parliamentary procedure for all of the new members which goes on for eight or 10 weeks at the start of a session for about an hour a week. I think that myself that this

course would be more helpful if they gave it at the end of the first year so that you would know what the legislative parlance is and you might be able to follow a bill much easier. I think that the best advice you can give to new members is to stay as close to their seat as possible for the first year and by repetition and hearing the different motions that are made and so forth that's probably even better than studying the book that we have and listening to our distinguished clerks lecture to them. I think that there are some improvements that could be made but I think that you also have to point out that these are rules have stood the test of time and although they might be antiquated in some areas I think that by and large they give the protection to the citizens of Massachusetts that I think they need and deserve. Well thank you very much Senator Donohue. Representative Quinn, you are majority Whip in the House of Representatives I believe and as such you have certainly a an important role to play in getting the members to vote on the bills and to participate in the sessions. Now do you think that Mr. Kaplan's views

on the legislative process and indeed some of his criticisms are valid as far as you see your own work at the State House. I cannot help recall Mr. Gibson a recent trip to New Orleans at the National Conference of legislative leaders where I attended with senate president Donohue when there was the relation of a story by a highly respected clerk of the New York Senate. This man was telling about a ruckus that occurred in that body during the last legislative session and some gentleman stood up to object to the procedure that was used and he was told by another gentleman why this is our normal procedure and it's been one of the unwritten rules of this body as long as the body has been in existence. The first gentleman insisted he ought to have a copy of these unwritten rules so-called. So I guess the legislative journalist played a prank on the gentleman the next morning he was delivered a very fine bound copy of a book

entitled The Unwritten rules of the New York Senate having opened it up he found every page in it blank, will fulfill that designation anyway. I'd have to disagree that legislators are confused or don't know what procedure is undergone or what's going on from one day to the next. I must insist that the working legislator and the gentleman who made the remark ,Mr. Kaplan in my mind was one of the hardest working of legislators when he was there the working legislator knows what's going on and can know what's going on any moment of the session or any moment of the working day. When the house is in session he simply has to ask the clerk he simply has to look in the can as it's called of legislative work for the day or he simply has to sit and listen to the speaker and keep his ears open and if he objects to any word that's said, stand up and object vociferously. I have never voted for an

electric roll call system however I was asked by Acting Speaker John Davran to visit Harrisburg Pennsylvania to see the working of the electric roll call system in that state capitol in the House of Representatives. I came back much impressed with the manner in which it worked and particularly impressed with the enthusiasm of the legislative leaders in Pennsylvania for the electric roll call system. I think since that visit that the electric roll call will prove to be a good thing. Not so much that it will speed up our work immediately but that it will encourage us to adjust it will be the lever from which we will be able to install certain adjustments. I think even within the existing rules of the General Court so that the session can be more intelligent and can be speeded more quickly there can be a more efficient process and I hate to speak of efficiency in this manner because

I must insist that you know our democratic system efficiency is not a criterion an efficiency has never been the pride of a democratic system but rather the very democratic fact of the enactment of legislation Sumner and I are very happy when we can see legislation in which we are interested passed very quickly through the chambers and be signed by the governor. But representative Kaplan and I have to agree at the same time that this is not the democratic way and I feel that the system of checks and balances we have, first of all in the establishment of a house in the Senate two bodies, next of all in the requirement of three readings for each bill in both the House and the Senate is a good and effective thing and is a Democratic thing. The only improvement that ought to be made on it is a further information a further distilling of what matter is to be considered on a given day. I would hope frankly that in the next legislative session we may have many more caucuses similar to what Pennsylvania does incidentally. A

caucus once a week in the beginning of the week and more liaison between the committee chairman and the legislative leadership so that the committee chairman can inform the leadership what bills are expected to come out of committees and the leadership can express its interest in whatever legislation the leadership wants to see come out of committees on a given week. And I think that in these caucuses I'm thinking especially of course of a Democratic caucus of House members. The differences within the majority can be ironed out. A lot of the debate on the floor of the house can be saved by direct discussion and action. And the members can be informed as to what they ought to look for during that week in the manner of legislation. I think this would go a lot toward both informing legislators and public what they may look for and providing for more efficiency but still within the framework of democratic government. Well thank you very much Representative Quinn represent the way Mormons of Cambridge is a person who's had a good deal of experience in the legislature in the House of Representatives. Representative HOLMES What about your field with

respect to Mr. Compean state. Well after listening to my majority whip he said a great many things that occurred to me as a result of reading some of Kaplan's article and listening to some of them talk just now. It seems to me that the the difficulty isn't so much in the rules themselves. And I've never been a believer that just because something's old it means that you have to get rid of it and that the difficulty isn't so much in the rules itself that it may often be in the in the misapplication of the rôles. Occasional misapplication or in the alternative and the failure of the House membership and I speak only as a House member because I'm not too familiar with the workings of the Senate. The failure of the House members to be aware of their rights under the rules I take for example the question of the power of the requirement in the rules that each bill be given 3 readings which means that there are at least

two opportunities and possibly three opportunities to to debate a bill first on the second reading of the third reading and finally. In a motion to strike the enactment clause which may come in just before the bill this is to pass out of the legislature to the governor's desk. Those three opportunities to a debate certainly ensure a fair taking advantage of that the public will have the public as well as the legislature and after all we are the representatives of the public the public and the legislature will get an opportunity to find out what the bills before them are about. If it seems to me if a member if a member doesn't take advantage of his of his rights to see that a bill is given full debate it's his own fault and not the fault of the of the rules. Occasionally we have the in the House particularly we've had the occurrence where a

bill list is given its three readings or in one day by the device of having a second legislative day. And this frankly has caused me a great deal of discomfort an awful lot of late hours. But this is this is a device which while not. Not a distortion of the rose. It seems to me isn't isn't the kind of device that the rules were made for. But again this is this it seems to be depends to a large extent on on many of our members failing to take advantage of their rights under the rules of if if the leadership is able to push through a second legislative day there may be two reasons for it first because we're in a hurry for the legislation the legislation has been given adequate debate and secondly and perhaps less healthy the the leadership may want the bellman is and is going to do all it can to to get the bill through. But this

isn't the trouble with the rules it seems to me. And when we talk about streamlining the rules it seems to me what we're saying is let's make that kind of thing even easier. The restrictions in the rules it seems to me are what are important. Occasionally speaking of the misapplication occasionally a clerk of a committee may make a mistake. Or or it may not be a mistake but to do him justice may make a mistake and report a bill out of committee is being favorably reported by the committee when in fact the committee voted not to report it favorably again and alert member of the committee in the House who disagrees with them with what the clerk of the committee has done or or who was quote the mistake. Whatever the case may be can stop this on the floor of the house by bringing this to the attention of the members. And if the other members are conscious enough of their obligation just as representatives of the situation will come to light and it seems to me in most cases will be will be corrected. So I would say that I would say that we're all after the same thing. But my

feeling is that you don't correct these situations by changing the rules you're Grif these situations by. By encouraging the membership to become more alert and to more part of proceedings on the floor of the house. Well thank you very much Representative Homans. Well James draw any of the traveller you have heard the challenge laid down by former representative Kaplan about some inadequacies of the legislative process the need for updating and modernizing the rules. And you have heard from three distinguished members of the General Court giving their views and generally speaking making the point that there are unwritten rules. There are conditions which necessitate some of the procedures which are followed and as a representative Holman's pointed out is not necessarily revising the rules but making the whole process a little more effective perhaps. And by the consultations and operations of the legislators and the in the Senate and in the house. Well

Mr. Johnny the floor is now yours what what are your reactions as a member of the press to some of the intricacies of legislation do you see room for improvement or do you think things might stand as they are right now. John Gibson first I must say that I'm surprised from my reading of the newspapers I didn't realize everything was rosy in the legislative process. I think the public has a general feeling that there was a confusion about. How the bills go through and when they go through and I think some of Kaplan's article pointed up some of the problems. For instance I have a feeling and I'll toss this at Mr. Quinn since the house is much the larger body in the assignment of bills to a specific committee on occasion. They end up in another committee. This is done sometimes by direction and by subterfuge. In my view too to hide the bill I get to get it hidden someplace

now. Is this a valid thought. Does this happen from personal animus to to a bill to the content of the bill to the person filing the bill. To. Preface my remarks I would like to say that if I remember the public will read about legislation in those papers I'd probably be confused. But now they're on an even ground Jim. It is usually the custom when not the custom but the rule when a bill is transferred from one committee to another, unless it relates to the expenditure of funds or unless it relates to a matter where the suspension of the rules will be required for example the continuance of any commission or committee including legislative members beyond the duration of a legislative session. These matters I transferred to another committee this particular bill is transferred from one committee to another usually to the Ways and Means Committee or the Rules Committee. It

does occur on occasion that once these bills are transferred they are kept in committee. For an occasion when proper public attention can be given to the legislation of every verse no public attention at all and when it's all the determination of the leadership that it would be better to let this legislation wait as is commonly referred to the next annual session. Sometimes that does occur. I'm thinking of a particular billet related to the construction of a bridge from leverage circle in Boston across to Charlestown. I can remember that this building and nearly saw death and had been had by one committee and had been referred to the Ways and Means Committee and had been reported on favorably because of the dollar investment involved on the part of government funds. And it was subsequently referred to the Rules Committee when the Rules Committee for some time and then suddenly there was great popular interest for it and the newspapers were. To be

credited for bringing this matter to public attention and as a result this legislation passed as it turned out the legislation was not effective because funds were not provided. But there are instances when bills I held waiting for a moment when they can be great a public interest in it and as a result greater legislative interest are also occasions when legislation is held in committee because it is felt that the legislation would not be good. Well this is this is the exercise of judgment of leadership. Isn't it a fact Representative Quinn that a wise legislator or a wise leadership of the legislature will take some bills that he might consider a controversial and he will mark them up for a heavy duty so called other reverse an informal day when very few members of the legislature meet tandem they skid through all the skid through committee isn't that the fact of how it operates. Sometimes it doesn't operate that way I can recall an occasion when I was sitting in the House chamber with about six other members and legislation relative to

air rights as I recall came into the chamber and I wasn't quite sure of the merits of that legislation it was late file legislation to be admitted and under our rules four fifths of the membership would have to approve this admission. There was certainly not even four fifths of the membership present let alone Was there a quorum present and the Republicans were concerned about this legislation and had called a halt to the thing. And as a result was speaker sat in his chair for about three quarters of an hour waiting for the Republicans among themselves to discuss the pros and cons of the matter and then to check among themselves to see if they would approve it. And it did seem that the Republican leadership then was ready to let this legislation go through but I who have one vote and who was certainly not in the leadership at that time was able to speak up and insist that this bill should be considered on another day when full membership was present and I had my way and this is what I mean by insisting that within the rules and within the framework of legislative action there was always an opportunity for a legislator to speak. Well if a legislator

chooses to be allowed into absence on a given day I think that's the fault more of the legislator himself than of the legislative leadership. Well good that Mr. Kaplan something. You have stated that sometimes the bills end up by subterfuge. As you know we have a committee and you have also stated that you were a method or a means or an idea or a suggestion for eliminating this and women aiding the so called heavy days in the so called well I like that. I think Mr Durrani that there may be a method and I think that Representative Quinn alluded to it. The side air of Caucasus feels to me as obviously it does to him and I think it does to many others. If heavy days could be established and if the caucuses could establish at the beginning of the week as they do. Somewhat this line in the Congress of the United States saying we're going to take up the following legislation this week. Then you may be able to handle this type of problem. I don't think you can stop all subterfuge

in fact as I said and sometimes subterfuge is the only way to get good legislation passed. I think one of the problems here is that these things are allowed under our rules and while a representative of Homans as said that the problem is the misapplication of the rules I think one of the problems of the problems is deeper than that is that the rules themselves in order for the president to side of the get something done are not of the speaker of the house to get something done and they are ultimately the ones responsible for the work that's not in the rules themselves. I tend towards misapplication they lend themselves to. To misapplication I think so Donna you alluded to that also saying that there is a problem here and I think what it has to do is really really be studied I don't think the legislature or the leaders are to be condemned for this situation I don't think anybody can be condone for either it's a it's a fact of life that these rules are that these rules exist and that they are.

Capable of being manipulated by the very breath of the manner in which in which they exist and while it's true you don't get rid of something because it's old. You don't retain something because you're afraid to change it either and I think that these rules really have to be looked into. This is John Gibson at the lake and filing center and tonight we're having a very informative discussion of some of the problems of the legislative process here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the General Court. Mr. Sommer Kaplan a Brooklyn attorney former representative in the House of Representatives in the state legislature has recently written an article expressing some of his own views on the problems of the legislative process and what might be done to improve them in view of his perspective as an eight year member of the General Court and responding to Mr. Kaplan's views are some of the leaders of the two houses of the General Court. Senator Morris Donohue who is president of the state Senate Democrat from Holyoke. Also

Representative Robert Quinn who is majority whip in the House of Representatives from Dorchester. And Representative William Holmes from Cambridge Massachusetts. Well now we have discussed some pros and cons of your. Article Mr. Kaplan but you know there are so few public discussions of some of the problems of the General Court and indeed of the whole area of Commonwealth Government and I wondered in our talking about bills and legislation. Senator Donohue you said that next Wednesday all the bills have to be submitted I believe for the forthcoming legislative session. Well now does this mean that all bills must be submitted that several people have referred for instance to bills that are being submitted a little later in this might be one area where the public is not totally familiar with all of the legislative proposals who can submit bills after next Wednesday and why. Well any legislator. Can submit bills after next Wednesday and while we have a good many of these that they have to

deal with town meetings that come up in late in February or early in March where there is some part of the warrant that needs a legislative action you no hurry but the people once again have a built in protection under our rules because for a bill to be admitted after next Wednesday it requires a four fifths vote in each branch of the legislature for admission. Now of course it can be said that in many of these instances that this is a rather perfunctory motion of the presiding officer put Still his chamber and if there is no debate on it of it's a non-controversial matter which many of these bills are then the bill is admitted. I can tell you the policy that we follow in the Senate. I haven't been a member of the House of Representatives in so long that I forget exactly how they handle it but for a late Bill to be placed before the Senate it requires my initials. My floor leader's initials and the Republican floor leader's initials once a member of the House or the Senate. Has the bill and the shield we and then sent it to the

other branch and it requires the initials of the speaker and the Republican leader in the House of Representatives then we place it before the Senate and the question comes on the suspension of join Rule 12. And this requires a four fifths vote in each branch. This means that if one fifth of the members present say that this bill should not be admitted for the session it is not admitted and that's the end of the bill now I take strong exception to one word that's been used on this program a number of times that our rules permit or snack of subterfuge. I think that if you know all the rules that this is not the case and I think that all legislators are acquainted with and I think that it's a word that just doesn't belong in this discussion and I think that if anybody's interested in good government then they go to the trouble to get elected to the legislature and they're speaking for their people that they can become conversant with the rules and I don't think that that word belongs in this discussion at all.

Well I have to go. I'm only quoting Mr. Kaplan. Well again I take exception to Mr. Kaplan. What I do have a question. Two questions and I need an answer about first before I ask the second. Mr. Kaplan are you going to have filed or is anyone going to have filed before this deadline. A bill calling for a study of the rules and regulations in the legislature for this upcoming session. The group of us in the Americans for Democratic Action have talked about this and the National ADA is in fact having a seminar I believe on December 5th on this matter and so far as Congress is concerned we're having it in Boston. And we'll know on November 30th I think. I'm not sure whether filing a bill is going to be the. Of the ads of this I think you do have rules committees a joint Rules Committee Rules Committee the House and Senate. And I think they ought to they ought to study this problem themselves and I think that maybe they maybe they will I've

heard some indication of some possible rules changes coming in on the way in the house and if this is so then I think we'll be well on the way I think before a bill is filed. I think the Rules Committee themselves ought to determine whether they think changes in the rules are necessary and they have ample opportunity to decide that. But I just can't give a definite answer on that at the moment. I may go on the assumption that such a bill is filed. Would you three legislate us support such a bill. President Donnie you would have to say that this is a very unusual question to come from a distinguished member of the press that you don't commit yourself on a bill until you are able to read it and find out what it contains and you probably don't make a decision until you've had an ample opportunity to research it and study it I don't know what the bills are that are going to be coming in. If there are any and. I certainly am not going to make a comment on what I'm going to do with him until I have to say yes to him that and I assume that's probably the thinking of the other two representative queenly representative Homans I have one

set of legislation the rules rather for about 8 years now and I intend to study them all even more thoroughly in the next two years Mr Drone well with a view to drafting or changing and shifting or anything like that or just studying for your own. Always always with a view toward the effectiveness of the rules as they apply to the procedure of the legislature. I would expect to do this with or without any any legislation filed for a study. I think Senator Daschle who said that chorus a little while ago that when they freshmen members of the House and the Senate demand that they are informed of some of the aspects of the legislative process and I was interested in Representative Quinn statement about the fact that he has studied the rules for a goodly period of time and this is something that goes on and on and on are the rules that complex or are they. In being subjected to interpretation they necessitate your costly reviewing their provisions and their applications. Are they in other words so difficult that the average man on the street assuming he did have an interest and

an active interest in the legislative process could not really understand what the rules say and what they mean to him as a citizen. You've studied them for an awfully long time yourself and you're still studying and this is a course is absolutely necessary but are they are they known or are they meaningful to the average citizen. I think that the average citizen who is an individual who runs for public office and steps into the legislature made very easily understood become very mean to him. What it seems to me raises a lot of. And encourages lethargy on the part of both individuals who are not legislators and new members of the legislature is the rope by which the speaker whoever is presiding goes through so many non-controversy on matters and acknowledges a motion for suspension of the rules so that non-controversial light arms may be considered and cleared off the counter within a day rather than waiting the usual three days

for three readings. And this suggests that these rules are either in effect a VAR ought to be done away with. But it's rather in the case of the non-controversial matter. That such a rule is that it is not necessary. Yet the rule can always be insisted upon by members and I recall within the past year and two years members of the minority party insisting upon the application of the rules in that particular instance. Then there are unusual circumstances in the admission of late filed bills when individuals can. Insist upon their rights under the rules and I recall occasions when experienced individuals who had read the rules and studied them and knew their application did insist upon the application of those rules. I think it's a rather simple set of rules. And I think it's very effective for the purposes of a democratic procedure in both branches of the legislature. I've been looking for ways to change the rules. As each time went on and I'm immediately impelled toward the idea that we don't need to have three readings it

just results in needless printing and everything else. And yet it becomes very important when a controversial measure occurs especially one that will have a cleavage of attitudes on the part of the major parties in the Commonwealth the Republicans and the Democrats become very important to insist that each one of these rules be applied and particularly the rule that would require a continuance of legislative consideration over a period of one day. Now Bill has already suggested that on occasion the legislative leadership insists on a second legislative day. This was something that was established as within the rules lawn years ago when as it was determined the majority was of a will that. Such a procedure ought to be undertaken because it was of the essence. And it's been my feeling generally the majority is of such a feeling then this is the democratic process and the majority rule generally to suspend our rules. We need two thirds vote. I'm never gonna win a question. We have set up the rules call for a public

hearing on each and every bill filed. Tell us about that. I'm sure the to counsel what about that all the while I'm sure the president sort of has a better but I think this is tradition rather than rule and We do well it's one of these on written rules that Representative Quinn talked about earlier. The committees with the exception of rules committees and Ways and Means Committee and maybe one or two others. But the regular standing committees all do grant a public hearing on each bill I think this is a problem that both the president said it was because the House of the chair of the committees would like to see resolved because I'm not sure that all bills ought to be given a public hearing and I think I made a suggestion in my article that the committee itself ought to be able to vote as to which bills require a public hearing and not as I pointed out why the issuance of a of validating the Acts of John Jones as a notary public got to be even marked for a public hearing is a is a good question the it just takes time and to

market and somebody feels they have to appear. Secondly I'm not so sure that the committee's not asked for briefs and written statements on controversial matters rather than public hearings or at least annoy with public hearings I think sometimes the public hearings turn into be it. Matters where both the presenter of the bill and members of the legislature are turning in a way a public debate rather a rather than a public hearing and depending upon how much press is there or is not there also that sometimes a public hearing is conducted before members of a of a committee who are not the same members that are present in executive session and are and the members in executive session haven't heard the discussion in the in the public hearing for the most part records that kept a conscientious clerk sometimes may keep notes and note who was there I think a good deal of

time could be saved if some revision to the public hearing set up was given without any loss of any democratic rights. Hello writer for your petition is another matter. I have only been able to find in the unwritten rules. You're right but I didn't realize that. When there was well no another plot point the curious to me isn't usually so not always but many times. It is not true that there's a considerable time lag between the public hearing and the executive session covering it. Doesn't that invalidate the idea of holding a public hearing much of what has gone on has slipped into limbo and then forgotten so. So why wouldn't it be better to have the executive session pretty immediately or eliminate the public hearing member retention of some legislators is fabulous especially on important items and it's usually the important items where the executive session will be delayed somewhat from the public hearing.

For one reason probably because the members are getting more and more information from the interested groups the lobbies the administration. Research stuff. Other interested people and for another reason because all of us in or out of the legislature are human enough to want to put off till the ultimate moment. The really great decisions I think that has just occurred is that when I think one of the changes that might be made as regards these public hearings and having executives and so forth the rule that says that all public hearings have to be completed by the fourth Wednesday in March has been given a great deal of thought in the Senate and I think that perhaps there is going to be a suggested change there that we extend this date perhaps till the last Wednesday in April for the reason that if you have a four or five thousand Bowes filed it's almost impossible to have a public hearing

and all of them and complete the work by the last ones day in March and under join Rule 10. And that one is a joint rule excuse me for interrupting the rule applies to both graciously and under joint Rule 10 the clerk of the Son and the clerk of the house has a solemn obligation to print all of the bills that have not been acted on by the committees on the calendar the next day with an unfavorable Committee report. We get around this and I don't like the term get around but for we handled it in this way we suspend joint Rule 10 for a week at a time perhaps three or four times after the ones in March to give the committees more time to clean up their work. One of the things that has been pointed out here and I think that some stress should be given to what is a fact that we have an office called the Senate clerk's office in the House clerk's office. These are the parliamentarians and they handle a great many diverse matters. And the way we've handled it in both branches

since the beginning of the Commonwealth I believe is that you have people of different ages coming along so that usually the combined experience of the three top officials in the clerk's office would talk around a hundred years. They're the real experts and if anyone wants to know about the rules and they don't think they understand themselves it's a very simple matter to go one and. You know the thing that you're attempting to accomplish parliamentary wise one of the clerks in the House or the Senate will outline the whole thing to you and tell you what barriers you can come across and explain it in a crystal IE so that you know when you walk in you'll know exactly what you want to do and how you're going to accomplish it. If you have the votes and I added the Pennsylvania winner just rated these were amazed at the confidence we instilled in our clerics both in the House and Senate in procedure in the legislative floor and I think that's a compliment to them as the Senate president said well I don't have a problem that you do rely heavily on the those people and they do much in the drafting of the bills don't know they don't know that that's a legislative bill that the council counts as matter not

about how then does it mean that we'll get through this and I'm thinking of a conflict of interest. I think that's a very poor you know. I may agree with you James but I think it was drafted badly and hastily. Is this a stampeding of public opinion to get a bill pushed through and drawn badly. Well I can tell you I sat on the recess commission I don't know whether you did or not this summer but this was a commission headed by former Attorney General Eddie McCormick. There were a couple of the senators and four or five members of the House of Representatives and the laypeople on this committee if you say it was drafted that only included the deans of all of our law schools here in the Commonwealth an outstanding member of the clergy of the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faith and The president of the mass bar and the president of the Boston bar Now this is a post that will be I imagine the combined best talent in the legal field from a point of view of a draftsmanship and so forth. And this is the result of that distinguished committee. Now, I would say that the people

that you work for Mr. draw only in your counterparts in other great corporations here in the Commonwealth have a great deal to do with the fact that Bill is on the statute books but the drafting if it's bad was done by people who are training all of the young minds in the legal profession in the commonwealth. Why did they eliminate the legislators from certain aspects of the bill? I don't like something I don't like I don't think that's a you know drafting drafting problem I think that was a policy problem. I don't remember the reason now, but I would have to agree with the president of the senate it if the drafting is bad it falls on the lay members of that commission but I personally think this bill is fairly well drafted and and that. Cities and towns and state employees and the municipal employees have lived fairly well under it. I'd like to get back to-- May I say a word on that? Go ahead Mr. Gordon.

I think there was a time in our legislature when one almost had to be a banker or have an interest in banking institutions to qualify for membership on a legislative committee on banks and banking. And if one were a plumber one would be more apt to be assigned to a Committee on Public Safety. Now I think the attitude is in it's suggested by your or your ideas on the conflict of interest laws Mr Dromey. Now I think the attitude is that if one is a bank one has banking experience then he had better sit on the Committee on Public Safety determining the aptitude of plumbing lies. And if one is a plumber then he can better sit on the committee and banks and banking because he's going to be completely unfettered by any prejudices and also by any previous knowledge. Mr. Homans represented how much we'd like to add to that what do you what do you think the qualifications should be on these committees. Yes well. My opinions on that are. Affected by my experiences. Yeah but it's true of all of them in the last session where as a

lawyer with some companies I went up in the water supply committee has its own reservoir. Has a certain differences with the then-Speaker. I think that the House, I think that one thing the newspapers hit all the time. Is this question of alleged quote conflict of interest interest end of quote on for example questions of traditional pay raises for of for example at the Boston Herald keeps hitting on all the time they say that lawyers shouldn't vote on this because they have a conflict of interest why shouldn't sit on the committee. Who knows more about the demands of the judge who knows more about what we expect of a judge in the lawyers who said in the in the house and I think this can be multiplied over and over again in the cases of other occupations. Yes, but who practices before the judges also? I bet it's before the judges. I have enough faith in my own integrity and conscience to be able to think that I make my

decisions and the house was unaffected by that by whatever may happen where I practice before judges. credit for I think that I mean only non-lawyer member of the spell was to draw me so I was the Tony's question raises a problem that I think is really a problem happening I think it's really a problem for the press I had to get away from the rules for a minute but this business of who practices before the judges it seems to me to connote much more than the word subterfuge. At the moment it seems to me that the question is who's the judge not who practices before the before the judges and I think we have enough faith and confidence in our judiciary system here to know that the fact that every judge I think are pretty much so I don't think we found to the contrary every judge is a is an impartial arbiter are they they live up to their office and I think most of them do it. An excellent job in so far as fairness fairness is concerned some

judges are better lawyers than the other judges but cannot that a man shouldn't be on Judiciary and dealing with judges problems because he practices before judges seems to me to establish an implication which I think is just unfair to the to the legislative legislator as it is this type of thing I think which lacks makes the public lose confidence when I'd rather get the public thinking about the about the rules and how much more they can know about the legislature so they can re-establish confidently I see just representing me and at least it seems to me the reason that a legislator is required to stand the scrutiny of his neighbors every two years if he seeks reelection is exactly to examine whether he has maintained his integrity in the face of any personal interest or personal conflicts. And remember anytime an individual does run for reelection he's subject to the open and loud criticism of his respective opponents who will make their voices heard before the people.

Well that may well be true it sounds a little bit complacent but it may well be true but didn't you have a remarkably large turnover in the elections this year which might bolster what you are saying that they could not stand the scrutiny. I can speak from personal experience that as long as we're game to that we had to because one of the people who turned over and I didn't run for re-election again. Not not because I was afraid to face the public but because a I have a whole sector of the criticism of people who are trying to do their job for trying to be adequately compensated for it and b I found that it was almost impossible to do the job in the legislature the way that it should be done under the rules and still less support your family and I got awful sick of the seeing the papers write about those those sinister legislators who voted themselves a pay raise when the only reason I voted myself a pay raise and I did and I would do it every time it came up for me I won was so that I could put myself in a position to do my job in the house properly and I think he had a lot of pay raise money and he was

represented grant think it should come up here take all the time you want on that Jim. May I say that I think this past year there were 18 of 240 legislators who were denied re-election. I think that was on 6:49 break Republicans over Democrats and my recollection is that the previous campaign there were 11 representatives who sought re-election who were denied re-election and I think that any time you get that number out of 240 or out of the number that have sought re-election it's not a very remarkably large turnover. I think and I'm sorry to say this because of Bill Homans because of other men I can think of like Tom White of Walpole competent attorneys intelligent individuals and dedicated men. I think that the reason we had such a life turnover of what about 72 members in the house again. Mr. President why we had such a large turnover of House members was the Discuss what you say they're running out of gas. If I may use

an analogy. All of these men who chose to serve and wanted to work. Seeing that constantly they were being knitted at home around the edges rather than and hit at for their substance. I say back I want to get back to the role. We're going to have to get completely hacking almost out and I'd like before we conclude just a drawing to give. Former Representative Kaplan a final say so here so to speak you we call upon you in the first place. How is this discussion going as it raised and what I think it has I think were closer together than that where we're coming close rather than drawing apart here I think everybody realizes there are some changes no that the problem was is really been raised by Representative Homans and by the others that any alert legislator can know the rules. The question is how alert you have to should you be a legislator a legislator is a busy person and not to be alert and to follow the rules and to apply them to be able to apply and you have to

be in that chamber almost every minute of the day because at 2 o'clock I want to clock when the when the session opens that may be 5 10 or 15 bills which are immediately referred to the committee and ways and means are discharged from one committee to another and it's through the elect legislator like the legislators we have here unlike Mr. Homans will be there to catch him but should he be put to that burden when he would be maybe doing other things for as far as constituents the burden got so high that Representative Homans had to leave the legislature. And because of time involved and I think this is true on others I think that the thorough study of the rules with a view to. Revisions would be a very helpful thing with a review of a revision in committees. Just one other thing I want to say that hasn't been brought forward here I think the committees need more assistance need more staff assistance and I think the president would welcome that and I don't the speaker of the house. Here's what I think one of the problems is that we have been niggardly in providing the staff assistance that that is needed here and maybe everything would flow into

place if we had some of that some staff assistance but I still think that the rules now are not intelligible either to the non alert legislature legislator or to the public. Well thank you summer Kaplan for your gadfly approach to some of the problems before the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I think this type of activity is very badly needed. And I share personally with Representative Holmes even the moderator of such a panel is supposed to be absolutely neutral that some of the problems confronting the legislature are certainly are not held in sympathy with the public and if all of our discussions do boil down to anything it is that the public itself has to be much more concerned. Take a much more active interest because after all the gentleman on our program and the ones on previous weeks from the General Court are representing the public are making decisions on behalf of the public and promoting the interests of the public and perhaps the press. Mr. Gurney could play a more active role here as well. Summer Kaplan you have suggested some revisions in the rules dealing with legislation in the General Court of Massachusetts

and it has been pointed out by our panel members this evening distinguished leaders of the General Court that there is a whole area here of unwritten rules that there are areas of informality and inflexible and flexibility that are needed. Perhaps the rules could be revised but is that representative Quinn pointed out. Efficiency isn't always a test of democracy. There are going to be some new features in the forthcoming sessions of the General Court that might help in this respect though such as the electric roll call system and so forth. But certainly some rules changes probably are needed you have called for a broad study in the study perhaps but only also be viewed by the public as something that is going to be of assistance in improving the role of the General Court in the whole governmental process in the Commonwealth. But these are matters for us to discuss further their matters for the public to pay more attention to as we continually consider problems of the Commonwealth on messages as you point out. Thank you gentleman and good evening.