Patrick frustrated by slow pace of progress

It looked like a done deal the day it was announced. At an international biotechnology conference in South Boston last May, Governor Deval Patrick proposed investing more than $1 billion in the industry, a colossal initiative intended to secure the state's position as a global leader in the field. Alongside him stood Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a tableau that seemed to ensure its success.

More than five months later, the bill hasn't even had a hearing on Beacon Hill; the first one is scheduled for later this month.

House leaders cite a number of reasons for the delays: Patrick did not file the bill until mid-July; the House and Senate spent six weeks debating whether to break it up or send it to a single committee; and there are differences between the governor and House leaders over crucial details.

But the freshman governor says he is exasperated by what he sees as legislative dilly-dallying, not only on the biotech bill, but on a host of other issues.

"I'm frustrated by the pace; I don't make any secret of that," Patrick said in an interview yesterday. "I don't think it's simply because I'm from the private sector or, as they say in the South, 'not from around here.' It's because I got elected to make change. People are hungry for it, and I think a lot of people see the reasons for the delays as excuses for inaction. And sometimes I do, too."

The biotech package is one of a series of blockbuster proposals the Democratic governor has rolled out since taking office: ending corporate tax breaks, repealing the telecommunications tax, allowing local communities to raise modest rooms and meals taxes, and getting tougher on gun crime.

But none of these big ideas appear to have any chance of becoming law before the Legislature wraps up business for the year on Nov. 21, raising the possibility that Patrick could finish his first year in office having accomplished few of his major agenda items. It was not supposed to be this way for the first governor in 16 years to see his own party control the Legislature.

"There's one party that runs 99.9 percent of everything," said Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr., Republican of North Reading and the House minority leader. "And the issues that he's brought up are not only not being addressed in the manner he proposes, but they're not being addressed at all."

DiMasi said in an interview yesterday that he has been working with the governor on a variety of bills, including two pending proposals on education law changes and a merger of the state's transportation agencies, as well as on DiMasi's own energy bill. He also pointed to the budget as an example of compromise and collaboration.

"It's the legislative process; it's deliberative," DiMasi said. "He's in the executive branch - and it's totally different from that point of view - and he's never been in government before. So he has to understand the process of the Legislature is very deliberate and it's slow - and it should be. It was deliberately created that way in the constitution by our forefathers."

The speaker said the disagreement over which committee should review the biotech bill concerned a number of committee chairmen, who had the right to have their say. The delay, he said, was perfectly normal and part of a healthy democratic process. There may be numerous policy details to hammer out, he added.

But Patrick said several biotech companies were already making decisions about whether to invest in Massachusetts based on that bill. "Now they look at us, and they say, 'If it takes this long to get something done that the leadership all agrees is right, then imagine if it's something really controversial,' " he said.

Patrick and DiMasi speak warmly of each other and have cultivated a cordial relationship in their weekly meetings, as well as a few social dinners outside the State House. But even in those situations, Patrick says he has "chided" DiMasi - who towers over the legislative process in the House, where bills normally begin their journey through the Legislature - for not moving faster.

But some lawmakers and other observers say that Patrick deserves some of the blame for the delays. The governor's critics say Patrick has exhibited a kind of legislative attention-deficit disorder, throwing out idea after idea, instead of zeroing in on a couple of doable things at a time.

Several of his initiatives have not even made it into bill form yet. His education reform package is now under construction. The administration briefed lawmakers earlier this month on the transportation agency merger, something Patrick has been discussing since last winter. Now his massive casino bill threatens to overshadow other business.

"They're not focused," said a Democratic political operative who asked not to be named, for fear of offending the governor. "The education thing was big and bold. They went off that to gaming. They went off that to a $2 billion higher education bond bill."

Patrick scoffs at that criticism.

"Given the state of our economy and public infrastructure and social needs, we don't have the luxury of taking one issue at a time and spoonfeeding it to the Legislature," he said.

Some of the governor's critics also say he has failed to cultivate the critical relationships he needs to have with lawmakers to get his agenda through. Representative Martha M. Walz, a Democrat from Beacon Hill who endorsed Patrick early in the Democratic primary, said his administration has not once asked for her help in pushing a bill, aside from inviting her to a budget strategy briefing.

Patrick, she added, has also never asked how he could help her with her priorities, she said, and he has repeatedly failed to consult her ahead of time on major state issues affecting her district, such as a plan to study temporarily re-routing Storrow Drive over the Esplanade to allow repairs.

"To not call on us to help or to help us be successful, as well, is a failure to understand the governing process," she said.

Other lawmakers disagree. Representative Rachel Kaprielian, a Democrat from Watertown, said Patrick and his staff worked closely with her on a proposal to let local communities buy insurance through the state, which she had been working on since before he was elected, and which Patrick incorporated into his Municipal Partnership Act.

"It was a very productive, positive exchange from beginning to end, and I never saw it as anything other than collaboration," Kaprielian said.

Patrick arrived at the State House with huge political capital and good will as the state's first black governor and the first Democrat to hold the office since 1990. But his power in the Legislature shrank significantly during his first 100 days; a string of gaffes and missteps raised questions about his political skills, and his budget proposal rankled lawmakers by asking them to cede some of their jealously guarded spending authority to the executive branch.

By spring, DiMasi had thrown cold water on several of the governor's revenue-raising ideas, citing concerns about the state's economy. Though Patrick eventually turned to a much more experienced team of advisers and focused on big ideas, from education reform to casinos, DiMasi seemed to have solidified his position as the most important influence over the Legislature.

Indeed, it was only with DiMasi's consent that Patrick achieved the few legislative victories he has this year, including the defeat of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, one of the few instances when Patrick, DiMasi, and Murray worked together with enormous energy. DiMasi also supported two aspects of Patrick's Muncipal Partnership Plan that were designed to help local communities save money on pensions and healthcare, both of which passed relatively quickly, as well as legislation to provide additional tax credits to the film industry.

Stephen P. Crosby, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and a former top aide to Republican governors Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift, questioned the idea that Patrick's agenda is moving too slowly through the Legislature. Patrick, he said, has initiated a debate the State House has not had in nearly two decades.

"The conversation we're having is about two totally huge paradigm changes," said Crosby, who was a member of Patrick's transition team. "The biggest one is the conversation about whether or not to have new revenue, as opposed to how much shall we cut. The second one is about what new services shall we deliver, as opposed to what services shall we cut."

Ambitious legislation, Crosby added, takes time to go through any Legislature, particularly when the same party is controlling all three top spots at the State House for the first time in years.

"They just don't know how the hell to do this dance," he said of Patrick and the legislative leaders. "That's not a sign of strength or weakness. That's a sign of incredibly changed times, and nobody knows how to deal with this."