It is telling that legislators from the region have attempted to frame their failure to support increased transparency in the Massachusetts House of Representatives as less transparent than what they did pass.
In articles and columns published in Daily Hampshire Gazette and The Recorder, area representatives Lindsay Sabadosa and Natalie Blais defended their votes against a bill that could have shed more light on Massachusetts House committee votes.
In a bold act of hubris, they claimed to have created more transparency than what was proposed. It’s a clever deceit, but all they did was create more transparency in the same way that Republicans in other states improved voter integrity.
Hear me out.
Republicans in other states claim they improved voter integrity with voter suppression efforts, voter registration requirements designed to discourage voting. Similarly, Massachusetts House Democrats claim to have improved transparency by requiring the public to commit more time for information that should be a matter of public record. Instead of voting in favor of a bill making all committee votes public, they claimed continued hybrid access to hearings, broadcasting formal and informal sessions, and publishing only the committee “no” votes is more transparent. They didn’t acknowledge that most people don’t have time to sit through legislative sessions. And it is reasonable to assume they knew that when they passed those so-called transparency measures.
But the rejected transparency bill was about committee votes. Publishing only the “no” votes doesn’t tell us who voted yes or who abstained. Rep. Sabadosa dismissed committee transparency in her Gazette column because: “They schedule bills, vet them for constitutionality, and handle House operations.” It seems to me that their views on the constitutionality of a certain bill alone demands transparency that shouldn’t be dismissed, and each committee vote should be counted and made publicly available.
Again, Massachusetts is reportedly the only state in the union where the executive, the legislative, and judicial branches claim exemption from public record laws. And they do so as they require town officials and public employees to adhere to open meeting laws. The hypocrisy is infuriating, but typical of partisan politics. We shouldn’t be surprised by the hypocrisy of Massachusetts Democrats.
In 2004, Massachusetts Democrats stripped then Republican governor Mitt Romney of his authority to make a temporary appointment to the U.S. Senate vacancy just in case fellow Democrat John Kerry won the presidency. Massachusetts Democrats then gave the same authority back to then Democratic governor Deval Patrick after fellow Democrat Ted Kennedy died. And most recently, Rep. Mindy Domb attempted to take said authority back again when it was thought fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren could be tapped by President Joe Biden for a cabinet position.
That was all OK with Democrats, but not Republican refusal to confirm former president Barack Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court during his last year in office, only to turn around and confirm former president Donald Trump’s nominee during his last year in office. It’s the same irresponsible abuse of power that breeds mistrust in our government.
We are also talking about an organization that revealed its collective character when they reelected their party chairman, Gus Bickford, after their own investigation found he egregiously violated their own party rules. The investigation concluded that Bickford interfered in the congressional primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Richard Neal and then Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse when he encouraged college students to formally accuse Morse of sexual misconduct. UMass later concluded Morse was innocent of inappropriate relationships, but the damage was done.
Despite their own finding about Bickford’s lack of integrity, the Massachusetts Democratic Party rewarded him for it by re-electing him as chairman.
Although I am an enthusiastic supporter of progressive firebrands like Bernie Sanders and Warren, we should be less-than-enthused by the Democratic Party super-majority of the our state legislature. They abuse their power, put sugar on it, and tell us how sweet it is.
We shouldn’t tolerate the deceitful claims by area legislators and the general lack of integrity of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. After all, most Massachusetts voters are unenrolled. We deserve better. We deserve representatives who don’t attempt to pull the wool over our eyes with clever sleights of hand.
We should urge elected officials at the municipal level to consider a run for a seat at the state level, because we need their kind of experience. Current or former mayors, select board members, school committee members, city council members, planning board members, and even a longtime municipal employees could provide better representation to the region.
They have more applicable experience and insight into the needs of the region than those elected as a result of Massachusetts Democratic Party fundraising connections.
Michael Seward lives in Shelburne.