Call the House back

LEGISLATORS acted swiftly last month to pass some emergency measures sought by Governor Patrick to close a $1.4 billion budget gap. But, three major budget-balancing proposals remain on the table. And so far, beleaguered House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi is declining to summon lawmakers back to take them up in full, formal session.

The proposals include a restructuring of healthcare payments for state employees, which would save about $28.5 million; allowing communities to levy taxes on telephone poles, which would generate $13 million; and holding back a $64 million payment to Boston Medical Center. As the state's financial picture darkens, lawmakers should begin debating these proposals as soon as possible.

The speaker argues that there is no need to take up the first two proposals until January when a new session begins, since those changes would not take effect until then anyway. As for the third option, lawmakers are inclined to protect Boston Medical Center from funding cuts.

There have been suggestions that DiMasi is reluctant to call back the House because he doesn't want to risk opening the legislative agenda to issues unrelated to Patrick's budget-cutting proposals.

The speaker faces investigations revolving around the financial dealings of some close associates. As the Globe reported this week, DiMasi is now in a standoff with the State Ethics Commission. The panel is seeking records from the speaker related to a 2007 law that authorized money for a lucrative software contract, which was awarded to a firm that made payments to DiMasi's associates. DiMasi so far has refused. He has insisted that secrecy rules prohibit him from publicly explaining his stance - even though, under the commission's own interpretation of the relevant rules, the speaker is free to talk.

As these controversies swirl around DiMasi, rivals are vying to succeed him as speaker. His power is at risk as a result.

If a fear of losing control is part of DiMasi's motivation for not calling a formal session - his defenders say it isn't - it's also true that each of the cost-cut proposals has strong opponents. For example, hiking the percentages that certain state employees pay for health insurance is opposed by those employees who would have to pay more; they happen to include legislators.

Each of the proposed cost cuts could be taken up in informal session. However, in an informal session, if any single member objects to a matter before the House, the bill cannot move forward. That basically prevents anything of a controversial nature from proceeding. A single opponent could stop any one of these measures.

Thanks to the power of incumbency, the Legislature that convenes in January will be almost identical to the one in place now. So why wait? The House should meet in full, formal session and finish the job of fixing the budget in a difficult time.