New rules are needed for the head of this House
I ARRIVED at the Massachusetts State House as a young reporter the day after House Speaker John F. Thompson had a brawl with a state banking official in the speaker’s office.
On the losing end of the fist fight with Thompson, the banking bureaucrat grabbed a heavy fire axe from its glass container and threw it at Thompson. Thompson ducked and the axe smashed into the office door, splintering it and sending secretaries scurrying. Welcome to the Massachusetts Legislature, I thought, and keep your head down.
It was not a policy difference that precipitated the fight between the hard drinking Thompson and the brawling banker. No, it was an argument over Thompson romancing the banker’s wife. Anyway, policy or people, nobody fooled with Thompson. He was a hard-drinking ex-Marine who carried shrapnel wounds in his legs from Iwo Jima.
That incident took place in March, 1963. Thompson, who ran the House with an iron fist - hence the nickname Duke, or the Iron Duke - was indicted on corruption charges a year later and was forced to step down as speaker. He died before he could come to trial.
There have been nine speakers from Thompson to recently resigned House Speaker Sal DiMasi, and almost half of them have been indicted on various charges, including DiMasi, who recently resigned from the House before he was indicted of corruption charges last month. The other two were Tom Finneran (obstruction of justice) and Charles Flaherty (tax evasion). Four out of nine, an amazing statistic.
“It is not a healthy job,’’ one longtime State House veteran commented the other day, and it gets less healthy the longer a legislator remains in office. It rarely happens that a newcomer gets in trouble. No, it takes time to accumulate the longevity and power that paves the way toward political arrogance, temptation, and disaster.
Outside of the fact that all nine speakers were Democrats, all were full-time lawmakers who made serving in the House their careers.
It was not meant to be that way. Years ago legislators had jobs away from the State House. Serving in the Legislature was considered to be a part-time job, not a lifetime sinecure. It is, of course, impossible to return to those simpler times. Life and laws are too complicated for that.
But it may be time to address certain structural changes in the Legislature that could be made to remove the temptations that go along with longevity in office.
It is good that ethics laws have been tightened. But in some ways it is like passing more laws making bank robbery illegal. What it comes down to basically is electing people of character to office. Since no one’s good character can be guaranteed, then perhaps certain structural changes could be made so that people do not serve so long that the Legislature becomes their life, job, and home.
One structural change that could work wonders is term limits. Members of the House and Senate could be limited to eight years in office - four successive two-year terms. Another change would be to limit the term of speaker and Senate president to four successive years, or two terms. The turnover would be healthy for the system. Legislators would gain enough knowledge to do the job without hanging on to it for life. Nobody would get too powerful.
Another change would be to initiate a six-month legislative session. There is no reason for the Legislature to be endlessly in session. A shorter session also insures that legislators will return to their districts when State House business is done. Nobody gets in trouble in an empty State House.
It would take a minimum of four years - two legislative sessions - to make these changes through a constitutional amendment. It just might be worth the time and effort. Certainly it is worth talking about.
It is true that speakers of the House in Massachusetts don’t break down doors anymore. They just break your heart.
Peter Lucas is a former political reporter for the Boston Herald, the Boston Globe, and the Phoenix. His latest book is “Balkan Caesar.’’ 