The House Chamber in the Massachusetts State House in Boston. (Maria Pemberton / CommonWealth Beacon)

A recent commentary piece by Massachusetts Senate counsel James DiTullio arguing that criticism of the Legislature’s productivity is misplaced because we are one of just seven states that allow for multi-issue “omnibus” bills drew considerable attention, including three op-eds written in response that we are publishing. In addition to the commentary below by former state representative Jay Kaufman, there are responses by Scotia Hille of Act on Mass and Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass.

IN HIS COMMENTARY piece, “Critics of the Legislature’s productivity ignore a key legal distinction setting Mass. apart from nearly all other states,” James DiTullio castigates critics of the Massachusetts Legislature’s productivity for failing to see the virtues of the complex bills passed by our lawmakers. DiTullio, the counsel to the Massachusetts Senate, correctly points out that 43 states have a single-subject limitation for any bill to be considered, and Massachusetts – like six other states and the federal government – does not.

This distinction, he argues, makes claims that our Legislature is among the country’s least productive very misleading when based solely on a tally of the number of bills passed, since we are one of a handful of states that can enact omnibus bills covering many issues.

The complexity of our few bills tells us very little, if anything, however, about the quality of the bills or of the process that produced them. In fact, the complexity of bills covering multiple topics often only adds to the dysfunction and underperformance of our Legislature. And DiTullio never addresses the question that really matters.

For six of my 24 years in the Massachusetts Legislature, I had the privilege of serving on the board of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the professional association serving legislators and legislative staff. I came to appreciate the wide diversity of practices and cultures in our 50 states. That experience leads me to suggest that the right question to raise is how our practices and culture translate into the quality of work produced and the quality of the exchange of ideas and information, both within the capitol and with the public. By these metrics, the Massachusetts Legislature is failing miserably.

DiTullio overlooks the Legislature’s practice of assigning bills to a “study” – a euphemism for making them disappear – or the cynical and intentional exploitation of multipurpose legislation to control the pace and outcome of what, in a well-functioning legislature, is called debate and deliberation, the democratic process. We, the public, don’t get to see committees grappling with complex and difficult issues, taking public action, and then sending bills to the floor of the House and Senate for active consideration and a vote.

Instead, if bills don’t vanish into alleged “studies,” they head to the all-powerful Ways and Means Committee or secretive conference committees. From there, if they appear at all, they emerge changed and blended with other similarly disappeared bills into new bills which, under the Legislature’s rules or practices, are simply voted “aye” or “nay,” with no amendments considered.

These long, multi-layered bills, written behind closed doors, are almost always released immediately before the chambers are asked to vote on them, certainly without adequate time for legislators, much less the public, to know what is in them or give them due consideration.

Sadly, few members, lobbyists, or advocacy organizations are willing to speak out against this and risk the access and goodwill that comes with staying quiet. In the silence, the anti-democratic practices continue unchallenged.

Perhaps requiring single-subject bills would make the omnibus bill sleight of hand harder to pull off. Perhaps requiring that any bill sent to “study” lead to a real report – complete with a recommended action to be taken by a real deadline. This would result in manageable and realistic action items in place of what are currently thousands of faux studies.

But these, however valuable, wouldn’t begin to address the underlying issues.

Perhaps eliminating the Legislature’s much-abused and corrupting leadership stipend practice would weaken the Speaker and Senate president’s hold on members and encourage more independence of thought and action. Perhaps having a nonpartisan office for policy and budget analysis (as most states do) would enhance the quality of the work and empower members to better understand and evaluate proposals before them.

Perhaps it makes sense to curtail the pay-to-play culture the results of which can be seen in legislative leaders’ campaign coffers filled by those seeking access and influence. Perhaps Ranked choice voting and serious campaign spending limits would change who runs for election and who serves in our name on Beacon Hill. Perhaps term limits for legislators (leadership positions in particular) could undermine the wait-your-turn and go-along-to-get-along culture that encourages members to surrender their independence and power to the person at the top.

Each of these reforms would make a positive difference. Would any or all make the Legislature more effective, transparent, accountable, and democratic? Let’s dare to find out. Allowing multi-subject bills is an interesting procedural distinction that sets us apart from most states, but it’s a distraction from the real issues that should be at the heart of any evaluation of how our Legislature functions.

Jay Kaufman is a former Democratic state representative from Lexington.