In May 2001, the Governor’s Council emerged from relative anonymity to make newspaper headlines across the country. As a pregnant acting Gov. Jane Swift lay hospitalized awaiting the birth of twins, the council balked at her request to conduct their weekly meetings via speakerphone, instead requesting a legal opinion from the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on the legality of running meetings by conference call rather than in person. Scathing editorials accused council members of sexism. The Boston Globe likened the councillors to “tiny and opportunistic sharks,” while the Chicago Tribune called Massachusetts the “Commonwealth of cavemen.”
The Tribune may have been a few centuries off, but it was right about the council’s ancient–and archaic–nature. The eight-member body dates back to the Pilgrims. Established in 1628 as a political check on the royal governor, 400 years later the council lives on, but as an outdated vestige of colonial rule, stripped of its original powers and purpose.
In these fiscally difficult times, we need to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy wherever we can. The council is a logical place to start.
State Rep. Barry R. Finegold of Andover and I have filed legislation–now pending before the Constitutional Convention, which is scheduled to reconvene on November 12–to abolish the Governor’s Council. This legislation would bring Massachusetts into line with the 48 states that manage to do without an executive council.
Let me be clear. I am by no means looking to single out individuals based on their performance, and I believe that many councillors have served the public well. This bill is not a personal attack on any individual. Rather, it is an effort to reform an outdated process.
And it’s not the first. In 1962, both the Democratic and Republican party platforms called for the abolition of the council, which had been under attack for years from governors of both parties and former members of the council itself for, among other things, selling pardons out of an underground parking garage.
Two years later, the majority of the body’s substantive responsibilities were stripped by voters in a referendum, including the council’s “advice and consent” function on gubernatorial appointments, salaries, and other executive actions. However, the ballot question did not repeal the council’s constitutional existence.
Today, the council continues to exercise its remaining powers: approval of expenditures from the state treasury (a function that is largely symbolic, because the council has no real authority over decisions already approved by the governor); approval of pardons and commutations; and approval of gubernatorial nominations–a task that today has been largely supplanted by the Judicial Nominating Commission, which reviews applicants and prepares a list of candidates for the governor to consider, and the Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Appointments, a collaborative effort by the Boston and Massachusetts bar associations, which conducts an independent review of nominees and rates them according to their qualifications.
These duties have not taken up much of the councillors’ time or attention. So far this year, only four meetings have lasted more than 10 minutes, and no meeting has exceeded 30 minutes. Instead of serving as a check on the governor in the judicial nominating process, the council largely rubber-stamps the governor’s nominees–in some cases, even after nominees have received a rating of “unqualified” from the Joint Bar Committee.
As the council’s responsibilities have diminished, its costs have increased. Most recently, councillors received a 60 percent raise, to $25,000 a year, on a voice vote during the 2000 House budget debate, with many members unaware of what they were voting on.
Our bill builds upon legislation proposed by Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1975. It would shift the council’s few remaining duties to other branches, requiring that the state Senate approve the nomination of all judicial officers, as at the federal level, and give the General Court the right to determine the terms and conditions of felony pardons and commutations.
I consider the Joyce-Finegold bill to be a commonsense measure that would remove a long outdated vestige of colonial government that lingers on for no good reason. As we work to streamline government and reduce unnecessary state expenditures, we have to take a good, hard look at the structure of our state government and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracies. We estimate that the abolition of the Governor’s Council would save the state $400,000 a year. This amount may not put a dent in our current budget problems, but it is still money better spent on teachers, police officers, and prescription-drug subsidies for our seniors.
The elimination of this unneeded body is the next logical step in removing waste in Massachusetts state government. It’s time for voters and elected officials alike to ask themselves whether we can afford to support the Governor’s Council any longer.
Brian A. Joyce (D-Milton) represents the Norfolk, Bristol, and Plymouth District in the state Senate.