Budgeting in the back room
With less open debate, critics say public loses
Democracy can be a messy business, as the old saw goes. But whoever said that hasn't been to the Massachusetts State House during budget season lately. As House members gathered on Beacon Hill this week to determine how nearly $27 billion in taxpayer money should be distributed, there were no ugly debates or suspenseful votes on spending priorities.
Instead, top lawmakers retreated down a corridor cordoned off from the public to determine which budget proposals would make it and which would not. Periodically, batches of amendments emerged and were sent to the floor for a swift and orderly approval.
Yesterday, as deliberations continued, the House chamber stood quiet for hours, as discussions of changes to the highly complex Medicaid budget went on in private from late morning to midafternoon. During that time, the only public action occurred when a substitute for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi appeared with a gavel to extend the recess for another few hours.
Ultimately, the budget leaders emerged and won quick passage of $38.7 million in additional spending on Medicaid and elder affairs, with minimal debate. As of early this morning, the House added at least $135 million in amendments to its original $26.7 billion spending plan during four days of deliberations, with a final vote expected today.
While the winds of change may be blowing through other State House corridors this year, with Governor Deval Patrick vowing to bring a new openness to state government, the making of the state budget remains largely a backroom affair.
"It is all closed doors, from soup to nuts," said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. "I don't think there's another state -- at least I haven't come across another state -- that has a similar process that is closed to the extent this one is."
David Guarino, a spokesman for DiMasi, defended the House budget process, saying it involves plenty of open discussion.
"There has been public debate on the budget all week, and each member has met with the [Ways and Means] chairman throughout the process to talk about what is important," he said. He added that there are fewer fireworks on the House floor these days because amendments on unrelated policy issues, such as the death penalty, are no longer allowed. In the 11th hour yesterday, however, the most spirited debate of the week erupted on just such an unrelated proposal -- to give homeowners more protection from foreclosure.
A generation ago, lawmakers haggled for weeks before passing a budget. Fiery floor fights over line items would drag on till the wee hours, sometimes all night. But over the years, and particularly under Thomas M. Finneran, House leaders made changes to make the ordeal quicker and more orderly, which consolidated power in the hands of a few.
This winter, the genial House Ways and Means chairman, Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop, invited every member of the House to a one-on-one meeting with him, so he could personally listen to their priorities. But DeLeo and his staff wrote the budget, in consultation with DiMasi. Most members of the House Ways and Means Committee saw the document just before everyone else did.
Members are allowed to submit amendments, but DeLeo is the main arbiter of which ones get endorsed by the leadership.
On the House floor, lawmakers can appeal to the full body if they disagree with one of DeLeo's decisions. But in practice, the GOP's tiny 19-member caucus offers nearly all the challenges and are generally ignored.
Before last night's foreclosure debate, most of the discussion time was taken up by lawmakers offering encomiums to DeLeo or another committee leader, thanking them for including one of their wish-list items in an amendment. They often struggled to be heard over the din of their colleagues' chatter, which grew so loud that the representative in the chair often asks members to "subdue their conversations."
Jackson C. Hall, a lobbyist for healthcare and education interests, said that having public debates does not necessarily make the process more democratic.
But "when they go off into an antechamber to hash out the details of an amendment, is that accountability?" he asked. "I think that is a fair question."
Guarino, however, said most members are "pleased with the amount of discussion they have relative to the budget."
Representative Stephen R. Canessa, a Democrat from New Bedford, successfully secured an additional $11 million for antigang programs through the amendment process this week.
If each representative made his case to the full House on every topic, Canessa said, it would take all year to pass a budget.
What really matters, he said, is whether the rank and file have influence. DeLeo, he said, makes that possible by listening carefully to each member's priorities; in fact, the chairman met with him twice.
"I don't think it's necessarily just him making the decision, because each one of us has input on that decision through that process," Canessa said.
But other members are not so sure.
Representative Harriet L. Stanley, a Democrat from West Newbury who refers to it as "the incredible shrinking budget process," says she misses the days when the budget was debated openly.
"In our attempts to professionalize the process, we've actually ended up marginalizing members' input," she said. "Maybe the rock 'em, sock 'em, anything-goes debates of the past would help make state government transparent again."
Jones, the minority leader, said the public loses when the budget process goes behind closed doors and when each piece of the budget passes unanimously.
"I think you lose accountability," he said. "I think you lose the ability to know where your own rep stood on any particular issue. And I think a piece of what is lost is legislators who fully appreciate the complexity of the budget.
"And when you lose that, you lose the ability to . . . educate the public." 